| Issues: | Appellant's Statement of the Issues:
1. Whether a formal "motion" with opportunity for Drayton to be heard is required before WSI exercises its continuing jurisdiction under N.D.C.C. 65-05-04 to review the disability status of a claimant, gather information, and utilize vocational
rehabilitation services.
2. Whether Drayton can be found in noncompliance with vocational rehabilitation under the provisions of N.D.C.C. 65-05.1-04(6)(2005).
3. Whether a reasoning mind could reasonably determine that Drayton intentionally manipulated the results of the May 18, 2006, functional capacity evaluation.
4. Whether Drayton is entitled to attorney's fees under N.D.C.C. 28-32-50.Reply Brief Issues
1. N.D.C.C. 65-05-28 may be applied to Drayton's claim to suspend benefits for her actions on the functional capacity assessments.
2. Drayton could be found in noncompliance with vocational rehabilitation under N.D.C.C. 65-05.1-04 and benefits suspended, irrespective of whether the 1993 or current version of the statute applies.
3.Drayton's arguments concerning application of N.D.C.C. 65-10-03 should not be addressed by the court. Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
1. Did Workforce Safety and Insurance have jurisdiction to suspend Appellee Jody Drayton's partial disability payments when it failed to invoke its continuing jurisdiction or initiate rehabilitation services by a motion?
a. Did Workforce Safety and Insurance deny Jody Drayton due process of law when it suspended her partial disability benefits?
b. Does administrative res judicata prevent Workforce Safety and Insurance from changing Jody Drayton's benefits without new evidence or change in Drayton's condition?
2. Can Workforce Safety and Insurance impose the penalty it imposed upon Jody Drayton if it is only investigating whether rehabilitative services would be beneficial to Drayton?
a. Does the 1993 [date of injury] version of N.D.C.C. 65-05.1-04(6), apply which would require Workforce Safety and Insurance to prove that there is a pattern of non-cooperation before Jody's disability payments could be suspended?
b. If the 2005 version of N.D.C.C. 65-05.1-04 controls, did Workforce Safety and Insurance mistakenly impose penalties under paragraph 6 instead of paragraph 3 of said statute?
c. Can Jody Drayton be penalized under N.D.C.C. 65-05-28 when Workforce Safety and Insurance did not direct her to submit an independent medical examination by a duly qualified doctor?
3. Is Workforce Safety and Insurance's determination consistent with the facts of this case?
4. Did Workforce Safety and Insurance act without substantial justification entitling Jody Drayton to attorney fees under N.D.C.C. 28-32-50?
5. Is Jody Drayton entitled to her attorney fees and costs in this appeal even if she does not prevail under N.D.C.C. 65-10-03 [1993 version]?
|