Parsons v. WSI
Warren Parsons, Appellant
Workforce Safety and Insurance Fund, Appellee
Northeast Judicial District,
Judge Donovan John Foughty
|Nature of Action:||Workers Compensation|
|Term:||10/2013  Argument: 10/01/2013 2:45pm|
|ND cite:||2013 ND 235|
841 N.W.2d 404
Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:|
1. Whether the ALJ's factual findings that Parsons sustained a work-related cervical strain and a microscopic tear to his discs resulting in discogenic and myofascial pain requires an award under the Act.
2. Whether the Act bars compensation for Parson's work-related disc tear as not morphologically or structurally "significant" as to be visualized on an MRI.
3. Whether the Act bars a claim for benefits because the work injury eventually resolves or cannot resolve because it combined with a preexisting condition to be of a longer duration than would otherwise be the case.
4. Whether the ALJ's finding that Parsons' preexisting asymptomatic degenerative disc disease made him vulnerable and susceptible to these injuries to the intervertebral discs in his cervical spine is a complete defense as a noncompensable natural progression of a preexisting condition under N.D.C.C. 65-01-02(10)(b)(7).
. 5. Whether Parsons' work injury that resulted in the above described physical injuries and chronic myofascial pain is compensable under N.D.C.C. 65-01-02(10)(b)(7) by acting on a preexisting susceptibility, or whether the work injury must be the sole cause of his damages.
6. Whether the ALJ has adequately addressed the substantial medical evidence favorable to Parsons.
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
 Could reasonable minds have reasonably found Parsons failed to prove that he sustained a compensable injury?
 Did the Administrative Law Judge properly apply N.D.C.C. 65-01-02(10)(b)(7) in determining that Parsons's pre-existing Cervical degenerative disc disease was neither substantially worsened in severity nor substantially accelerated in progression?
 Did the Administrative Law Judge properly apply N.D.C.C. 65-05-08.3 when he determined that opinions of WSI's IME physician, Dr. Janssen were more credible and persuasive than those of Dr. Fleissner, the treating provider?
 Must Parsons's request for attorney's fees be denied because he has not established that WSI acted without substantial justification?
|Add Docket 20130197 RSS|
|1||06/27/2013||NOTICE OF APPEAL: 06/27/2013|
|2||07/09/2013||DISK-Transcript of Administrative Agency Hearing dated March 6, 2012 (e-mailed)|
|3||07/18/2013||ELEC. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED July 18, 2013 (ENTRY NOS.1-38)(2012-CV-00145)|
|4||07/18/2013||ELEC. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED July 18, 2013 (ENTRY NOS.1-37)(2012-CV-00342)|
|5||08/06/2013||APPELLANT BRIEF (PDF) (2012-CV-00145)|
|6||08/06/2013||E-FILED BRIEF (PDF)|
|9||08/09/2013||Rec'd $25 surcharge for the ATB & ATA (receipt #22007)|
|10||08/12/2013||AMENDED ELEC. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED August 12, 2013 (ENTRY NOS.1-39)|
|11||08/12/2013||Rec'd 2-Disc listed on event #16 from district court (sent by U.S.)|
|12||08/13/2013||Rec'd 7 copies of the ATB & 6 copies of the ATA|
|13||08/19/2013||ELEC. SUPP. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED AUGUST 19, 2013 (ENTRY NOS. 40-41) (SENT BY U.S. MAIL #41)|
|14||08/21/2013||Rec'd Register of Actions record item #41 from district court|
|15||09/05/2013||APPELLEE BRIEF (PDF)|
|16||09/05/2013||E-FILED BRIEF (PDF)|
|19||09/09/2013||Rcv'd 7 copies of AEB & 6 copies of AEA from CSD|
|20||09/09/2013||Rcv'd $25 surcharge for AEB (receipt #22208)|
|21||09/13/2013||NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT|
|22||09/18/2013||REPLY BRIEF (PDF)|
|23||09/18/2013||E-FILED BRIEF (PDF)|
|24||09/19/2013||Rcv'd 7 copies of RYB from CSD|
|25||10/13/2013||APPEARANCES: Dean J. Haas; Lolita G. Hartl Romanick|
|26||10/01/2013||ARGUED: Dean J. Haas; Lolita G. Hartl Romanick|
|27||10/01/2013||ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|
|28||12/19/2013||DISPOSITION: REVERSED AND REMANDED|
|29||12/19/2013||SPLIT OPINION: Maring, Mary Muehlen|
|30||12/19/2013||DISSENT: Crothers, Daniel John: DISSENT|
|31||12/19/2013||DISSENT/JOIN: Sandstrom, Dale V.: JN/DIS|
|32||12/19/2013||Costs on appeal taxed in favor of Appellant|
|33||12/20/2013||Judgment Sent to Parties|
|35||01/23/2014||RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE|
|36||02/19/2014||Corrected/Substitute Opinion Page - paragraph 20, page 9, line 5 after quotation|