TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Coleman v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau

Douglas COLEMAN, Claimant and Appellant, v. NORTH DAKOTA WORKERS COMPENSATION BUREAU, Appellee

Coleman v. N.D. Workers Comp. Bureau, 1997 ND 168, 567 N.W.2d 853
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
North Dakota Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
August 14, 1997
Docket
No. Civil 970079
Judges
Vande Walle, Maring, Neumann, Burdick, Sandstrom
Citations
567 N.W.2d 8531997 ND 1681997 N.D. LEXIS 1871997 WL 464143

Opinion — De Walle

VANDE WALLE, Chief Justice.

[¶ 1] Douglas Coleman appealed a district court judgment affirming a Workers Compensation Bureau order awarding him permanent partial impairment benefits. We reverse and remand.

[¶ 2] After injuring his back when he fell off a truck, Coleman had a partial hemilami-nectomy at L4, L5 in 1978. On February 22, 1996, Dr. Michael P. Martire performed a permanent partial impairment evaluation of Coleman, using the Fourth Edition of the American Medical Association’s Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment [AMA Guides ]. Martire determined, in part:

“For the patient’s chronic lumbar pain without any evidence of radiculopathy or loss of motion segment integrity but with decreased lumbar range of motion status post lumbar laminectomy the patient best fits into Lumbosacral Category II and receives 5% impairment of the whole person.”

In a March 18, 1996, letter to Coleman’s attorney, Martire referred to Coleman’s pre-surgery medical records and said:

“There is no doubt that the patient at one time had a radiculopathy, otherwise he would not have had an absent Achilles reflex. Therefore, if one strictly follows the AMA Guidelines, considering the fact that the patient had evidence of a radiculo-pathy prior to his surgery, he would therefore fit into Lumbosacral Category III and receive 10% impairment of the whole person.”

[¶ 3] The Bureau agreed with Dr. Martire’s “evaluation of the claimant’s current post-surgical condition,” and awarded Coleman 25 weeks of compensation for a 5% permanent impairment of the whole body for his lumbar injury. Coleman appealed to the district court, which affirmed the Bureau’s decision. Coleman appealed to this court.

[¶ 4] NDCC § 65-05-12 was amended in 1989 (1989 N.D. Laws, Ch. 765, § 4) to provide that “[a]ny rating of the percentage of functional impairment should be in accordance with ... the most recent edition of the”

AMA Guides “unless proven otherwise by clear and convincing medical evidence.” NDCC § 65-01-02, defining permanent impairment, was amended in 1989 (1989 N.D. Laws, Ch. 765, § 1) to require that loss or loss of use of a member of the body be determined in accordance with “the most current edition” of the AMA Guides.

Coleman contends that by referring to the “most recent” or “most current” edition of the *855 AMA Guides, the Legislature has unlawfully delegated to the American Medical Association the authority to determine the criteria for rating impairments. Coleman contends that the Third Edition of the AMA Guides, the edition “in effect when the legislature enacted into law the language incorporating the AMA Guides must be used to rate his impairment.” The parties waived oral argument because similar issues were already pending before this court.

[¶ 5] For the reasons stated in the opinion, we lately construed NDCC §§ 65-05-12 and 65-01-02 as adopting the “most recent” or “most current” edition of the AMA Guides in existence at the time of their enactment.

McCabe v. North Dakota Workers Comp. Bureau, 1997 ND 145, ¶ 16 , 567 N.W.2d 201 . When NDCC §§ 65-05-12 and 65-01-02 were amended in 1989, the “most recent” and the “most current” edition of the AMA Guides was the Third Edition, printed in November 1988.

1

The parties conceded this case would be controlled by our decision in McCabe .

Thus, Coleman’s impairment should have been evaluated under the Third Edition of the AMA Guides, rather than the Fourth Edition.

[¶ 6] Coleman contends he should be awarded attorney fees under NDCC § 28-32-21.1. Recognizing our decision in McCabe , we are unable to conclude the Bureau acted “without substantial justification,” as required for an attorney fee award under NDCC § 28-32-21.1.

[¶7] The judgment is reversed, and the matter is remanded to the district court with directions to remand the matter to the Bureau for redetermination under the Third Edition of the AMA Guides.

[¶ 8]MESCHKE, MARING and NEUMANN, JJ., and EUGENE A. BURDICK, Surrogate Judge, concur.

[¶ 9] EUGENE A. BURDICK, Surrogate Judge, sitting in place of SANDSTROM, J., disqualified.

1

. The Third Edition (Revised) of the AMA Guides was printed in December 1990. The Fourth Edition was printed in June 1993. Subsequent amendments to the statute were effective July 10, 1996 and August 1, 1997.

See McCabe v. North Dakota Workers Comp. Bureau, 1997 ND 145 , ¶ 6 n. 1 and ¶ 7 n. 2, 567 N.W.2d 201 .

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1997: 11999: 219972026peak 1999 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Feist v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau1997 ND 177, 569 N.W.2d 1
  2. Saari v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau1999 ND 144, 598 N.W.2d 174
  3. Henderson v. Henderson1999 ND 156, 598 N.W.2d 490

Most recent

  1. Henderson v. Henderson1999 ND 156, 598 N.W.2d 490
  2. Saari v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau1999 ND 144, 598 N.W.2d 174
  3. Feist v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau1997 ND 177, 569 N.W.2d 1

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
McCabe v. N.D. Workers Comp. Bureau, 1997 ND 145, 567 N.W.2d 201 18

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list