Legal Opinion · Dissent

Fetzer v. North Dakota Workforce Safety & Insurance

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided April 10, 2012No. 20110251Published

1DissentMaring, Justice

[¶ 16] I respectfully dissent. I would adopt the positional-risk doctrine and reverse the district court judgment affirming the Administrative Order.

[¶ 17] Before 1977, our statute defined a compensable injury as one arising in the “course of employment.” See Schlenk v. Aerial Contractors, Inc., 268 N.W.2d 466, 469 (N.D.1978). Our legislature amended the definition of a compensable injury in 1977 to “an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment.” 1977 N.D. Sess. Laws ch. 579, § 2. Our Court’s interpretation of this amendment, which added the words “out of and,” was…

2Cases cited40 opinions

  1. Whetro v. AwkermanMichigan Supreme Court · 1970
  2. Taylor v. Twin City ClubSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
  3. Steinberg v. South Dakota Department of Military & Veterans AffairsSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2000
  4. Milledge v. OaksIndiana Supreme Court · 2003
  5. Butler v. SOUTHERN STATES CO-OP., INC.Supreme Court of Virginia · 2005

35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API