Keidel v. WSI, et al.
- Jesse Keidel, Appellant
North Dakota Workforce Safety
and Insurance Fund, Appellee
Kolling & Kolling, Inc., Respondent
- Case Type
- CIVIL APPEAL : WORKERS COMPENSATION
- Appeal From
Case No. 2022-CV-00068
Southwest Judicial District, Stark County
William A. Herauf
Parties' Statement of Issues
ALJ Hovland’s October 16, 2000, Order making a causal determination that Jesse Keidel suffered Permanent Partial Impairment (PPI) to the left knee due to arthritis, without apportionment to a preexisting condition, is res judicata and cannot be relitigated as demonstrated in Cridland v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau, 1997 ND 223, 571 N.W.2d 351.
Whether the District Court erred in affirming the ALJ’s decision that the apportionment of permanent impairment for Appellant Jesse Keidel’s (“Keidel”) left knee condition was not barred by administrative res judicata.
Jesse Keidel appeals from a district court judgment affirming an administrative law judge’s (ALJ) decision denying Keidel permanent partial impairment (PPI) benefits.
In 1996, Keidel suffered a work-related injury to his left knee that required surgery. The surgeon noted Keidel’s left knee was arthritic and might need reconstructive surgery in the future. In 2000, WSI denied Keidel PPI benefits, and the decision was affirmed by an ALJ. The impairment rating relied on by WSI and the ALJ did not apportion Keidel’s left-knee impairment to any preexisting arthritis. In 2019, Keidel had left-knee replacement surgery.
In 2020, Keidel requested another PPI evaluation. In November 2020, WSI denied an impairment award for Keidel’s left knee. WSI’s impairment rating of Keidel’s left knee apportioned 50 percent of the impairment to preexisting arthritis. Keidel requested a hearing, arguing the apportionment of his left knee impairment due to preexisting arthritis was litigated and decided in 2000. The ALJ upheld WSI’s decision denying Keidel PPI benefits. The ALJ concluded administrative res judicata did not apply because Keidel’s knee condition in 2020 differed from his knee condition in 2000. Keidel appealed to the district court, and the court affirmed the ALJ’s decision.
On appeal, Keidel argues the decisions made by the ALJ and the district court were wrong.
(Note: Attachments may not be available for recently filed cases and/or confidential documents.)
|Seq. #||Filing Date||Description||Attachment|
|1||08/08/2022||NOTICE OF APPEAL : 08/08/2022|
|2||08/15/2022||Rec'd filing fee|
|3||08/16/2022||NOT. OF FILING NOT. OF APPEAL AND PROOF OF SERV.|
|4||08/16/2022||Notice served on Dean J. Haas, Jacqueline S. Anderson, & Kolling & Kolling, Inc.|
|6||09/13/2022||ELEC. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED SEPTEMBER 12, 2022 (ENTRY NOS. 1-108)||View|
|7||09/16/2022||Rec'd 3 copies of ATB from CSD|
|9||10/07/2022||Oral Argument Request by Appellee|
|10||10/11/2022||Rec'd copies of AEB from Central Duplicating|
|11||10/19/2022||NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT|
|13||10/19/2022||Intent to Particpate in Oral Argument by Appellant||View|
|14||10/20/2022||Rec'd 3 copies of RYB from CSD|
|15||11/09/2022||NOTICE OF RESCHEDULED ORAL ARGUMENT SENT|
|16||11/28/2022||APPEARANCES: Dean J. Haas/Jacqueline S. Anderson|
|17||11/28/2022||ARGUED: Dean J. Haas/Jacqueline S. Anderson|
|18||11/28/2022||ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|