| IN THE SUPREME COURT |
| STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA |
SUPREME COURT NO. 20020335
| ND WORKERS COMPENSATION, |
| APPELLEE/APPELLANT |
| vs. |
| ROBERT RINGSAKER |
| APPELLANT/APPELLEE. |
| APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF WARD COUNTY DISTRICT COURT | |
| DATED NOVEMBER 20, 2002, | |
| WARD COUNTY DISTRICT COURT CIVIL NO. 02-C-476 | |
| THE HONORABLE GARY A. HOLUM, PRESIDING | |
BRIEF OF APPELLANT/APPELLEE ROBERT RINGSAKER
| DIETZ & LITTLE LAWYERS | |||||
| STEPHEN D. LITTLE (ID# 03323) | |||||
| ATTORNEY AT LAW | |||||
| 2718 GATEWAY AVENUE | |||||
| SUITE 302 | |||||
| BISMARCK, ND 58501 | |||||
| ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT | |||||
| (701) 222-1761 | |||||
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . i
Table of Authorities Cited . . . . . ii
Statement of the Issues. . . . . . . 1
1. Did Robert Ringsaker file a timely claim for workers compensation benefits for his right shoulder condition on February 3, 2000?2. Did the District Court abuse its discretion in holding the Bureau to the terms of the Order Granting Continuance?
State of the Case. . 1 - 2
Statement of the Facts . . . . . . . 2 - 3
Law and Argument . . 3 - 7
1. Robert Ringsaker timely filed his claim for
workers compensation benefits. . . . . . . . . 3 - 6
2. The District Court did not abuse its discretion
in holding the Bureau to the terms of the Order
Granting Continuance . . . 6 - 7
Conclusion . . . 7 - 8
Certificate of Service . . . . . . . 8
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED
PAGE
CASES
Anderson v. Workers Compensation Bureau,
553 N.W.2d 496, 500 (N.D. 1996) . . . 5, 6
Klein v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau,
2001 ND 170, 634 N.W.2d 530 . . . 5, 6
White v. Workers Compensation Bureau,
441 N.W.2d 908 (ND 1989). . . . . 4, 6
STATUTES
N.D.C.C., Section 65-05-01 . . . . . . 2, 6
I. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
1. Did Robert Ringsaker file a timely claim for workers compensation benefits for his right shoulder condition on February 3, 2000?
2. Did the District Court abuse its discretion in holding the Bureau to the terms of the Order Granting Continuance?
II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Robert Ringsaker filed a claim for worker's compensation benefits on February 3, 2000 (Appendix p. 19 (hereafter App.)). Mr. Ringsaker noted on his claim form that he had had ongoing right-shoulder problems for the previous few years and asserted that his right-shoulder condition was progressive and was attributable to 16 years of opening and shutting trailer doors, pulling fifth wheel pins, cranking trailer dollies and moving freight as a trucker for Yellow Freight.
Mr. Ringsaker told the Bureau that he had engaged in repetitive right arm use for the previous 16 years as a truck driver, he had no hobbies or sports which might explain his shoulder injury, and he had had shoulder symptoms and treatment for a couple of years prior to filing his claim (Supplemental Appendix pp. 1-7 (hereafter Supp. App.). The Bureau issued a notice of decision in May of 2000 dismissing Mr. Ringsaker's claim, stating that he had not provided a specific incident on his claim form or provided a specific date of injury, and asserting that there was no objective medical evidence of a right shoulder condition related to work duties (Supp. App. pp. 8-9). Mr. Ringsaker requested reconsideration, asserting that his right shoulder condition was, in fact, work related (Supp. App. p. 10). Nevertheless, the Bureau dismissed Mr. Ringsaker's claim in a formal order dated June 21, 2000 (App. 22-29).
Over one year later, on July 16, 2001, the Bureau issued an Amended Order of Dismissal, agreeing that Mr. Ringsaker had suffered a work-related injury but asserting for the first time that he had not filed his claim within the one-year limitation period specified in N.D.C.C. Section 65-05-01 (App. pp. 5-11). Again, Mr. Ringsaker requested reconsideration and demanded formal hearing (Supp. App. 11).
A formal hearing was held before a temporary administrative law judge (TALJ) on February 24, 2002, on the issue of whether Mr. Ringsaker had timely filed his claim for benefits (Supp. App. 12). On March 10, 2002, the TALJ issued recommended findings of fact and conclusions of law finding that Mr. Ringsaker had not timely filed his claim for benefits (App. pp. 39-48). The Bureau adopted the TALJ's recommended findings on March 22, 2002, (App. 49) and Mr. Ringsaker appealed to the District Court (Supp. App. 23-24).
While Mr. Ringsaker's appeal was before the District Court, the Bureau sought and obtained an extension until August 2, 2002, in which to file its brief (App. p. 51). The Bureau failed to comply with the terms of the order granting the extension, which its counsel had drafted. The District Court refused to consider the Bureau's brief and directed judgment for Mr. Ringsaker (App. 59). The Bureau has appealed.
III. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
Mr. Ringsaker first sought treatment for his right shoulder complaints with Dr. Barnard Varberg, an orthopedic surgeon, on January 21, 1997 (Supp. App. pp. 14-15). Mr. Ringsaker continued to work as a truck driver for Yellow Freight despite the occasional symptoms in his right shoulder (Supp. App. p. 15). Mr. Ringsaker, who described his shoulder as "real stiff and sore," continued to seek occasional medical treatment (Supp. App. p. 16). He understood from Dr. Varberg that his condition was arthritic (Supp. App. 17). Although Dr. Varberg diagnosed Mr. Ringsaker with both rotator cuff syndrome and arthritis, he merely indicated to Mr. Ringsaker that his condition was arthritic (Supp. App. 18). Mr. Ringsaker explained that he did not file a claim for workers compensation benefits in 1997 because he understood his condition to be arthritis and, consequently, not work related (Supp. App. 19).
In January 2000, while at the Mayo Clinic, Mr. Ringsaker was, for the first time, told he had a rotator cuff tear, and he promptly filed his claim for workers compensation benefits (Supp. App. 20). In October 2000, Mr. Ringsaker had corrective rotator cuff surgery performed (Supp. App. 21-22). Mr. Ringsaker continued to work, without any time off due to his right shoulder condition, until his surgery in 2000 (Supp. App. 26). Because Mr. Ringsaker had medical insurance (App. p. 15), his out-of-pocket cost for medical care before he filed his claim were negligible.
IV. LAW AND ARGUMENT
1. Robert Ringsaker timely filed his claim for workers compensation benefits.
As noted earlier, the Workers Compensation Bureau initially dismissed Robert Ringsaker's claim for benefits for his right-shoulder condition on the grounds that he had not demonstrated, through objective medical evidence, that his right-shoulder condition was causally related his work duties (App. pp. 22-29). Over a year elapsed between the Bureau's initial dismissal and its amended order of dismissal (App. 29, 11). During that time, the Bureau apparently became convinced that Mr. Ringsaker had, in fact, suffered a compensable work injury but presumably should have known of the compensability of his condition within one year after his first symptoms in 1996. In other words, although the Bureau itself, with full access to all medical records and a staff of experts, did not consider Mr. Ringsaker's condition to be work related until July 16, 2001, he nevertheless should have filed his claim more than three years earlier. It is clear from Mr. Ringsaker's testimony, which was uncontroverted, that until he was diagnosed with a rotator cuff tear in February of 2000, he understood his right-shoulder condition to be non-work-related arthritis (Supp. App. p. 25). Prior to filing his claim for benefits in 2000, Mr. Ringsaker continued to work despite having a painful right shoulder (Supp. App. p. 26).
The issue of when the one-year filing deadline for establishing a compensable worker's compensation claim begins running was first considered by this Court in White v. Workers Compensation Bureau, 441 N.W.2d 908 (ND 1989). Like the claimant in White, Robert Ringsaker was told by his doctor that he had arthritis. Also, like White, Mr. Ringsaker did not miss any work because of his right shoulder condition. This Court noted that filing dates must be considered under a reasonable person standard. Whether Robert Ringsaker should have followed Dr. Varberg's diagnosis of arthritis or should have, nevertheless, filed a claim for workers compensation benefits at that time should be gauged on the basis of a reasonable person with a high school education and a lifetime of truck driving. This Court recognized that the average person would pursue a doctor's diagnosis no further unless he somehow had additional medical information or training. White, supra. This Court has explained, "Without loss of work time, significant medical expense, or specific medical advice, a reasonable person would not reasonably know of a compensable work injury." Anderson v. Workers Compensation Bureau, 553 N.W.2d 496, 500 (N.D. 1996). In the instant case, Mr. Ringsaker filed his claim for workers compensation benefits immediately after he learned at Mayo Clinic in 2000 that he had a torn rotator cuff (App. 1, 47).
This Court affirmed its adoption of the reasonable person standard in Klein v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau, 2001 ND 170, 634 N.W.2d 530. The Court noted that "a person who experiences pain and other symptoms while working does not have reason to know of a significant work-related injury" Klein para. 15, citing Anderson v. Workers Compensation Bureau, 553 N.W.2d 496, 499 (N.D. 1996). The Court went to note,
Certainly, some injuries are obviously caused by a claimant's work and do not require a doctor to inform the claimant his injuries are work related. In these situations, the limitations begins to run in absence of any medical advice. Other complex, insidious injuries, however, require knowledge in medical matters because of the causes and effects are not immediately apparent to the reasonable lay person not learned in medicine.Klein, para. 19.
In the instant case, Robert Ringsaker was told by Dr. Varberg that his right shoulder symptoms were due to arthritis. Mr. Ringsaker reasonably understood that arthritis is a condition common to he general public and would not ordinarily be a compensable injury. It was only after Mr. Ringsaker learned that he had a torn rotator cuff that he filed his claim for workers compensation benefits and obtained appropriate surgical care. Indeed, it was not until the Bureau fully understood Dr. Uthus' medical opinion dated January 31, 3001, [sic] (Supp. App. 13) that it finally considered Mr. Ringsaker's condition to be compensable. From the time the Bureau issued its notice of decision on May 4, 2000 (Supp. App. 8-9) until it issued its amended order of dismissal on July 16, 2001 (App. pp. 5-11), the Bureau claims and legal departments concluded that Mr. Ringsaker's right shoulder condition was not work-related. Now, the Bureau insists that, not only was Mr. Ringsaker's shoulder condition always work-related, but Mr. Ringsaker should have known that it was work-related some time before January 21, 1998. The Bureau's position is unreasonable. The TALJ failed to apply the reasonable person standard as adopted by this Court in White, Anderson, and Klein, supra and failed to apply that standard to Robert Ringsaker.
2. The District Court did not abuse its discretion in holding the Bureau to the terms of the Order Granting Continuance.
It is unquestioned that the Bureau failed to comply with the terms of the order drafted by its counsel. Ironically, the Bureau, having misused its discretion in applying N.D.C.C., Section 65-05-01, now bemoans the harsh result of the District Court's discretion.
In the instant case, the District Court's reversal of the Bureau's decision and resulting award of benefits to Robert Ringsaker was justified. Not only did the Bureau violate the terms of its own order, its results-oriented approach in denying Mr. Ringsaker benefits deprives it of any right to complain. The Bureau could have avoided the District Court's "sanction" easily by: (1) filing it brief on time, or (2) requesting another extension. Instead, the Bureau treated the matter like a game of horseshoes and assumed the District Court would just sort of go along.
The Bureau laments, "If only we had known." Well, Robert Ringsaker would like the ability to predict the future, too. If he had known in 1996 that his occasional, right shoulder pain was caused by a work-related torn rotator cuff and that he would someday need surgery and a period of disability as a result, he could have filed his claim then. Unfortunately, Mr. Ringsaker did not understand either the seriousness or the cause of his shoulder pain until he consulted with Mayo Clinic doctors in 2000, shortly before he filed his claim for benefits.
IV. CONCLUSION
The Bureau now concedes that Mr. Ringsaker suffered a gradual and progressive work-related right shoulder rotator cuff tear. Obviously, that was his condition, not as diagnosed by Dr. Varberg in 1997, but as diagnosed at the Mayo Clinic in 2000. Based on the information provided to him by his doctors, Mr. Ringsaker reasonably did not file a claim for workers compensation benefits until he understood the true nature of his condition and its relationship to his work activities. The Bureau did not accept the compensability of Mr. Ringsaker's rotator cuff tear until it had weighed and considered the January 31, 2001, opinion of Dr. David Uthus for over six months. Presumably, the evidence needed to establish compensability did not exist before Dr. Uthus' opinion. If Mr. Ringsaker had ignored Dr. Varberg and filed a claim in 1997, the Bureau would have denied it, as it did, as noncompensable. Robert Ringsaker suffered a work-related injury, and he acted reasonably in filing a claim for worker's compensation benefits only after he was convinced there was a work relationship. Mr. Ringsaker respectfully requests this Court affirm the decision of the District Court reversing the decision of the Workers Compensation Bureau and directing the Bureau to accept Mr. Ringsaker's claim and provide appropriate benefits.
Respectfully submitted this 11th day of February 2003.
| DIETZ & LITTLE LAWYERS | ||||||
| BY: STEPHEN D. LITTLE (ID 03323) | ||||||
| ATTORNEY AT LAW | ||||||
| ATTORNEYS FOR THE APPELLANT | ||||||
| 2718 GATEWAY AVENUE SUITE 302 | ||||||
| BISMARCK ND 58501 | ||||||
| (701) 222-1761 | ||||||