Spectrum Care, L.L.C. v. Workforce Safety and Insurance

2004 ND 229, 690 N.W.2d 233, 2004 N.D. LEXIS 372, 2004 WL 2922133
CourtNorth Dakota Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 17, 2004
Docket20040171
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 2004 ND 229 (Spectrum Care, L.L.C. v. Workforce Safety and Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering North Dakota Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Spectrum Care, L.L.C. v. Workforce Safety and Insurance, 2004 ND 229, 690 N.W.2d 233, 2004 N.D. LEXIS 372, 2004 WL 2922133 (N.D. 2004).

Opinion

VANDE WALLE, Chief Justice.

[¶ 1] Spectrum Care, L.L.C., appealed from a judgment affirming a Workforce Safety and Insurance (“WSI”) decision classifying Spectrum’s employees for purposes of establishing Spectrum’s insurance premiums. We conclude WSI’s classification of Spectrum’s employees is supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and we affirm.

I

[¶ 2] Spectrum operates Somerset Court, an assisted living retirement facility in Minot. About seventy-six residents live in apartments at Somerset Court, and the facility provides meals in a dining room for its residents. According to Kathy Klein, the director at Somerset Court, the residents:

have to be able to walk themselves down to the dining room. They need to be able to dress themselves for the most part. We do assist with simple items, buttons, shoes, TED hose, things that are difficult with arthritic fingers, things like that. They need to operate pretty much independently within their own apartment area. We’re there just to provide services to them, you know, as *235 far as things that they would like to have, transportation, activities, meals.

Spectrum provides activities for the residents, including “day trips to the park, to the casino .... different activities in the courtyard, Bocchi ball, horseshoe, different things like that .... scavenger hunts, we play cards, we shoot pool, golfing.”

[¶ 3] Spectrum- is an employer subject to the insurance requirements of N.D.C.C. Title 65, and during the time relevant to this proceeding, employed about thirty-three individuals at Somerset Court, including about sixteen to eighteen “resident service aides” and two “activity aides.” After receiving a claim for benefits and conducting a field audit, WSI classified Spectrum’s “resident service aides” and “activity aides” as “9040 Hospitals” with a designated composite rate of 1.91 for purposes of establishing Spectrum’s insurance premiums. Spectrum requested reconsideration of WSI’s decision, claiming its facility provided no health care for its residents and its employees should have been classified either in a different or a new classification. After further meetings and consideration of Spectrum’s job descriptions, WSI classified Spectrum’s resident services aides and activity aides as “9002 Domestics” with a designated rate of 3.31 for purposes of establishing Spectrum’s insurance premiums.

[¶ 4] Spectrum requested' and received a formal hearing, after which an administrative law judge recommended affirming WSI’s decision regarding resident service aides and recommended that WSI review the duties and activities of Spectrum’s activity aides for purposes of establishing insurance premiums for them. WSI adopted the administrative law judge’s recommendation, and after Spectrum appealed, the district court affirmed WSI’s decision.

II

[¶ 5] Chapter 65-04, N.D.C.C., authorizes WSI to classify employments with regard to their degrees of hazard, to determine the risks of the different classifications, to fix the rate of premium for each classification, and to determine the amount of premium to be paid by each employer. N.D.C.C. §§ 65-04-01 and 65-04-04. See In re S.A. Healy Co., 109 N.W.2d 249, 250 (N.D.1960). Section 65-04-32, N.D.C.C., was enacted in 2001 to provide employers with a procedure to challenge decisions under N.D.C.C. ch. 65-04, and parallels the procedure for challenging claims decisions in N.D.C.C. § 65-01-16. Hearing on SB 2157 Before Senate Industry, Business, and Labor Comm., 57th N.D. Legis. Sess. (Jan. 17, 2001) (written testimony of Julie Leer, General Counsel for WSI). Section 65-04-32, N.D.C.C., outlines the procedures for challenging a WSI decision under N.D.C.C. ch. 65-04, and those procedures include an informal decision by WSI, an employer’s right to petition for reconsideration, and a party’s right to request a rehearing. Under N.D.C.C. § 65-04-32(5), rehearings must be conducted as hearings under N.D.C.C. ch. 28-32, to the extent that chapter does not conflict with N.D.C.C. § 65-04-32. WSI may request a hearing officer to conduct a rehearing and issue recommended findings, conclusions, and orders. Within sixty days after receiving the administrative law judge’s recommendation, WSI must serve the parties with its posthearing administrative order, and an employer may appeal to the district court under N.D.C.C. ch. 65-10. Section 65-10-01, N.D.C.C., authorizes appeals of WSI decisions issued under N.D.C.C. ch. 65-04, and any appeal under that section must be taken in the manner provided by N.D.C.C. ch. 28-32. Those provisions contemplate review of decisions classifying employees *236 for purposes of insurance under the same standard of review for decisions on claims for benefits.

[¶ 6] Under N.D.C.C. §§ 28-32-46 and 28-32-49, the district court, and this Court on further review, must affirm a WSI decision on a claim for benefits if: its findings of fact sufficiently address the evidence and are supported by a preponderance of the evidence; its conclusions of law and order are supported by its findings of fact; its decision is supported by its conclusions of law; its decision is in accordance with the law and does not violate the claimant’s constitutional rights; its rules or procedures have not deprived the claimant of a fair hearing; its conclusions of law and order sufficiently explain its rationale for not adopting a contrary recommendation by an administrative law judge; and the provisions of N.D.C.C. ch. 28-32 have been complied with in proceedings before the agency. In reviewing an agency’s findings of fact, we do not make independent findings of fact or substitute our judgment for that of the agency. Elshaug v. Workforce Safety & Ins., 2003 ND 177, ¶ 12, 671 N.W.2d 784. Rather, we decide only whether a reasoning mind reasonably could have determined the agency’s factual conclusions were supported by the weight of the evidence from the entire record. Id. An agency’s decision on a question of law, including the interpretation of a statute, is fully reviewable by this Court. Id. Our review under those provisions is consistent with the deferential standard that this Court has historically applied to rate decisions by the predecessor to WSI. See State v. Hughes Elec. Co., 51 N.D. 45, 57, 199 N.W. 128, 132 (1924) (“court may not substitute its judgment for that of the bureau as to what is a reasonable rate or just premium”). Moreover, in other contexts, we have specifically observed that we give deference to administrative agencies in complex areas like rate setting. See St. Benedict’s Health Ctr. v. North Dakota Dep’t of Human Servs., 2004 ND 63, ¶ 9, 677 N.W.2d 202. We apply those principles of deference to our review in this case.

Ill

[¶ 7] In its appellate brief, Spectrum argues WSI failed to issue a final order in this matter, because WSI’s decision required further analysis of the appropriate classification for Spectrum’s activity aides. WSI responds that it has completed its classification of activity aides and has supplemented the record accordingly. During oral argument to this Court, Spectrum conceded that issue has been finally resolved and this appeal is properly before us.

rv

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2004 ND 229, 690 N.W.2d 233, 2004 N.D. LEXIS 372, 2004 WL 2922133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spectrum-care-llc-v-workforce-safety-and-insurance-nd-2004.