Midthun v. NORTH DAKOTA WORKFORCE SAFETY AND INSURANCE , 2009 N.D. 22 ( 2009 )

SANDSTROM, Justice,

concurring in the result.

[¶ 18] As this Court said in Vetter v. North Dakota Workers Comp. Bureau, 554 N.W.2d 451, 454 (N.D.1996), “Summary affirmance of an administrative agency decision is appropriate if an appellant’s specifications of error ‘fail to specifically identify any error with any particularity.’ ”

[¶ 19] The “specifications of error” in this case contain only boilerplate, with no errors identified with particularity:

This appeal is taken upon the grounds that the decision by WSI in its July 20, 2007, Final Order is not in accordance with the law.

[¶ 20] These specifications of error are similar to those this Court held insufficient in Vetter:

Vetter appealed to the district court, serving the following specification of error with her notice of appeal:

“This appeal is taken upon the grounds that the decision by the Bureau is not in accordance with the law; that certain Findings of Fact made by the Bureau are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence; and that the Conclusions of Law made by the Bureau are not supported by its Findings of Fact.”

Id. at 453.

[¶ 21] The inadequate specifications here contrast with adequate specifications filed in other cases, identifying the specific findings of fact and specific conclusions of law by number and explaining specifically why they are claimed to be in error.

[¶ 22] Under N.D.C.C. § 28-32-42(4) and our clear case law, the district court should have summarily affirmed WSI’s order. I agree with the majority that the judgment of the district court must be reversed, but for the reasons stated here.

[¶ 23] Dale V. Sandstrom