Hoffner v. ND Workers Comp. Bur.
v.
North Dakota Workers
Compensation Bureau, Appellee
and
North Central Construction, Inc., Respondent
Judge Michael O. McGuire
| Appellant: | Vogel Law Firm | |
| Appellee: | Leo F J Wilking , Spec. Asst. Atty. Gen. |
I. The North Dakota Worker's Compensation Act requires compensation for injuries arising out of employer-required travel to a remote job site. Are Appellant's injuries compensable where he was injured while traveling with other employees at the direction of his supervisor, transporting equipment to a remote work site during work hours?
II. The North Dakota Century Code requires reversal of an agency's order where the decision is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Is Appellant entitled to reversal where the Administrative Law Judge incorrectly applied the "substantial evidence" standard in its findings of fact?
III. North Dakota Supreme Court precedent mandated compensation for an employee in Diegel v. Workers' Compensation Bureau, 469 N.W.2d 151 (N.D. 1991), who suffered injuries in an accident in his personal vehicle, before work hours, while not being compensated, while en route to pick up other employees a few miles from work. Do our facts mandate compensation under Diegel, where Appellant was told by a supervisor to ride with another employee and transport work equipment to the job site, and where the accident occurred during work hours, while being compensated, en route to a remote job site in East Grand Forks?
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I. Did the Bureau Act in Accordance With North Dakota Law in Determining that Hoffner's Travel to East Grand Forks on the Day of His Accident Was Not Employer-Required or Supplied and Was Not a Substantial Part of the Service for Which He Was Employed?br> II. Were the Bureau's Findings of Fact Supported by a Preponderance of the Evidence and Did the Bureau Utilize the Correct Evidentiary Standard?
III. Were the Bureau's Conclusions of Law Supported by its Findings of Fact?
Add Docket 990366 RSS