Robert Procive appealed a district court judgment that dismissed his appeal from an Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) order, which affirmed the North Dakota Workforce Safety and Insurance (WSI) decision denying his claim for benefits related to carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). The district court found it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal, which Procive contested.
Procive initially reported a repetitive injury from work activities dated back to March 8, 2000, claiming injuries to both wrists, elbows, and shoulders. After multiple reports and claims regarding his CTS, WSI accepted liability for his right CTS but denied coverage for the left, citing untimeliness and lack of evidence for compensability. Subsequently, WSI reversed its acceptance of the right CTS claim, accusing Procive of willfully making false statements about prior injuries, and ordered him to repay benefits.
An administrative hearing upheld WSI's decisions, and Procive's petition for reconsideration was denied. When Procive appealed to the district court, WSI moved to dismiss, asserting the appeal should have been filed in the county where the injury occurred or where Procive resided. The district court agreed with WSI, dismissing the appeal based on jurisdictional grounds, leading to Procive's appeal to the Supreme Court of North Dakota, which affirmed the lower court's dismissal.
Procive contends that the district court incorrectly dismissed his appeal, asserting that jurisdiction exists under N.D.C.C. 65-10-01, which states an appeal should be filed in the county where the injury occurred. He claims his condition, a progressive injury from work activities, could relate to his employment across 37 counties, including Stutsman County. The statute governing appeals from administrative agencies mandates that the appellant must meet specific requirements for the district court to have subject matter jurisdiction. Jurisdictional facts are pivotal; when undisputed, the question of jurisdiction is a legal one, but if disputed, it involves a mixed question of law and fact, necessitating a de novo review of legal questions and a review of factual findings under the clearly erroneous standard.
According to N.D.C.C. 65-10-01, a claimant must demonstrate residency or the location of the injury to establish jurisdiction. Procive does not reside in Stutsman County, but the location of the injury is contested, classifying it as a mixed question of law and fact. The district court found Procive resides in Stark County and that he indicated the injury occurred in Belfield and western North Dakota, not Stutsman County. The evidence from the administrative hearing did not support the claim that the injury occurred in Stutsman County, and Procive failed to provide sufficient evidence linking his work there to the injury. His earlier claims did not list Stutsman County as the site of injury, rendering his current assertion inconsistent. The court concluded that the evidence corroborated its findings, and Procive did not adequately demonstrate that the injury was inflicted in Stutsman County.
Procive failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that his injury was sustained in Stutsman County in response to WSI’s motion to dismiss. Although he claimed to have worked in multiple counties, including Stutsman, and submitted an affidavit detailing his work as a land surveyor, he did not specify that the injury occurred in Stutsman County until after the dismissal motion was filed. The evidence indicated that Procive's claims were vague and lacked corroboration regarding his work in Stutsman County. Consequently, the district court found that Procive did not meet his burden of establishing jurisdiction, as the appeal was not filed in the county of residence or where the injury was inflicted. While recognizing the challenges in pinpointing the location of a progressive injury, the court noted that statutory modifications could address such issues, and Procive could have appealed in his county of residence. The district court's dismissal of the appeal was affirmed, and other issues raised by Procive were not considered.
