WSI v. Boechler, PC, et al.
- State of North Dakota by and through
Workforce Safety and Insurance, Plaintiff and Appellee
Boechler, PC and Jeanette Boechler, Individually, Defendants and Appellants
- Case Type
- CIVIL APPEAL : WORKERS COMPENSATION
- Appeal From
Case No. 2020-CV-2097
East Central Judicial District, Cass County
Tristan Jones Van de Streek
Parties' Statement of Issues
A. Plaintiff Workforce Safety & Insurance (WSI) proposed to flagrantly violate both the Procedural Due Process and the Substantive Due Process
rights of the Boechler party defendants/appellants by virtue of the plaintiff/appellee WSI’s improper attempt to use a April 30, 2015 WSI order to impose liability upon the defendants for events that allegedly occurred years later during the periods July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019 and July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020.
B. The assessment by plaintiff WSI of $11,486.00 in “penalties” against defendant Boechler P.C. on the basis of $261.99 in workers compensation premiums is violative of Boechler P.C.’s Procedural Due Process and Substantive Due Process, rights – because WSI never entered any
administrative decision assessing those penalties and necessarily Boechler P.C. was never given an opportunity to appeal those onerous, outsized
penalty assessments – first administratively and then through eventual judicial review.
C. While the District Court decided correctly in dismissing Count II of the Complaint which related to alleged personal liability of defendant appellant Jeanette Boechler for unpaid workers compensation premiums and associated penalties, the Court erred in dismissing Count II of the Complaint on a “without prejudice” basis instead of “with prejudice.
D. Where plaintiff WSI asserts that defendant Boechler P.C. owes a total of only $261.99 in workers compensation premiums themselves – but a whopping $11,486.00 in penalties and penalty interest – these penalties assessed by WSI are so egregiously disproportionate to Boechler P.C.’s
underlying liability of $261.99 that these penalties and penalty interest violate Boechler P.C.’s Procedural Due Process, Substantive Due Process
and Excessive Fines Clause constitutional rights under both the United States and North Dakota Constitutions.
E. Contrary to the erroneous assertions of plaintiff WSI – the defenses interposed by the Boechler P.C. defendants’ based on state and federal constitutional provisions are in no way precluded by application of the doctrine of res judicata – for the foundational reason that administrative agencies are without jurisdiction to adjudicate such constitutional arguments.
 Whether the imposition of penalties under N.D. Admin. R. 92-01-02-14(7) for failure to timely submit payroll reports; under N.D.C.C. § 65-04-33(6)(c) for failure to respond to requests to supply information; and N.D.C.C. § 65-04-33(6)(a) for failure to
submit payroll report violate procedural due process, substantive due process, or the excessive fines clause under the North Dakota and United States Constitutions.
 Whether the District Court’s correctly dismissed Count II of Plaintiff’s Complaint related to personal liability of Jeanette Boechler under N.D.C.C. § 65-04-26.1 without prejudice.
Boechler, P.C., and Jeanette Boechler (collectively, “Defendants”) appeal from a judgment holding Boechler, P.C., liable for unpaid workers compensation premiums, penalties, and interest; and dismissing a claim against Jeanette Boechler in her personal capacity without prejudice.
WSI sued the Defendants to collect unpaid workers compensation premiums, penalties, and interest; and to enjoin them from employing others until they have complied with the North Dakota Workers Compensation Act. WSI moved for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment as to Boechler, P.C., concluding the law firm was liable for premiums, penalties, and interest, and injunctive relief was appropriate. The court denied summary judgment as to Jeanette Boechler. After a bench trial, the court concluded WSI failed to satisfy the requirements of N.D.C.C. § 65-04-26.1(3), and dismissed the count against Jeanette Boechler without prejudice.
On appeal, the Defendants argue the district court erred by holding Boechler, P.C., liable for penalties in violation of procedural due process, substantive due process, and the excessive fines clause; and dismissing the claim against Jeanette Boechler in her personal capacity without prejudice, instead of with prejudice.
(Note: Attachments may not be available for recently filed cases and/or confidential documents.)
|Seq. #||Filing Date||Description||Attachment|
|1||08/12/2021||NOTICE OF APPEAL : 08/12/2021|
|2||08/16/2021||Rec'd $125 filing fee|
|3||08/16/2021||NOT. OF FILING NOT. OF APPEAL AND PROOF OF SERV.|
|4||08/16/2021||Notice served on David C. Thompson & Jacqueline S. Anderson|
|5||09/13/2021||ELEC. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED SEPTEMBER 10, 2021 (ENTRY NOS.1-88)|
|6||09/21/2021||MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF|
|7||09/22/2021||ACTION BY CLERK - Granted : 10/19/2021|
|8||10/19/2021||SECOND MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF|
|9||10/21/2021||ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE - Granted : 11/09/2021|
|12||11/08/2021||Rec'd non-substantive corrections to ATB (paragraph numbering & hard page breaks)|
|13||11/09/2021||Rec'd 3 ATB & 2 ATA from CSD|
|14||11/12/2021||Rec'd $31 ATA overage fee (receipt #28283)|
|16||12/06/2021||Oral Argument Request by Appellee|
|17||12/09/2021||Rec'd AEB from CSD|
|18||12/18/2021||MOT. EXT/TIME REPLY BRIEF|
|19||12/18/2021||ACTION BY CLERK - Granted : 01/07/2022|
|20||12/21/2021||NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT|
|21||12/22/2021||Intent to Particpate in Oral Argument by Appellant|
|23||01/10/2022||Rec'd non-substantive correction to RYB|
|24||01/10/2022||Rec'd non-substantive RYB C.O.S.|
|25||01/11/2022||Rec'd 3 copies of RYB from CSD|