Skip to main content

Paul v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau

N.D.June 4, 2002No. 20010290Cited 26 times

Case Details

Judge(s)
Walle, Neumann, Maring, Kapsner, Vande Walle
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Wrongful TerminationFailure to Accommodate

Outcome

The Supreme Court of North Dakota reversed the Workers Compensation Bureau's decision, holding that the Bureau improperly placed the burden of proof on the claimant to disprove the viability of a vocational rehabilitation plan. The court remanded for proceedings consistent with the requirement that the Bureau establish that a rehabilitation plan provides a reasonable opportunity for employment.

Similar Rulings

Ringsaker
N.D.Jul 2003
Remanded
Grand Forks Professional Baseball, Inc. v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau
U.S. Supreme CourtMay 2003
Unknown
Sjostrand
U.S. Supreme CourtMar 2003
Dismissed
Daniel J. Ciambriello v. County of Nassau, Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Russell Rinchiuso, Richard Cotugno and Ron Roeill
2nd CircuitJun 2002
Mixed Result
People in re S.L. and A.L
COLOCTAPPDec 2017

The Rio Blanco County Department of Human Services (Department) became involved with the parents in this case as a result of concerns about the children's welfare due to the condition of the family home, the parents' use of methamphetamine, and criminal cases involving the parents. Attempts at voluntary services failed, and on the Department's petition for dependency and neglect, the district court ultimately terminated the parents' rights. On appeal, the parents contended that the Department failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify them with their children. Specifically, the parents contended that the Department did not give them sufficient time to complete the services under their treatment plans and failed to accommodate their drug testing needs. The termination hearing was not held until more than a year after the motion to terminate was filed. For nine months before the motion to terminate was filed, the Department provided numerous services to the parents, including substance abuse therapy, therapeutic visitation supervision, drug abuse monitoring, and a parental capacity evaluation. The Department also provided counseling for the children. Both parents missed drug tests and tested positive during the testing period, and both were arrested for possession of methamphetamine during the pendency of the case. The Department made reasonable accommodations to meet the parents' needs and the parents had sufficient time to comply with their treatment plans. The record supports the trial court's findings that termination was appropriate because (1) the court-approved appropriate treatment plan had not been complied with by the parents or had not been successful in rehabilitating them (2) the parents were unfit and (3) the conduct or condition of the parents was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. Father also contended that the trial court's decision to interview the 9-year-old twin children together in chambers fundamentally and seriously affected the basi

Defendant Win

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.