 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Zander v. Workforce Safety and Insurance12/19/2003
Zander's current back condition be undisputed, or that his doctors state that they could say with "100 percent certainty" that Zander's work injury was the sole cause of his current medical condition. Rather, the appropriate standard was proof by evidence which leads to a firm belief or conviction that the allegations are true. We conclude that the ALJ and WSI applied an erroneous legal standard when they required Zander to prove with "100 percent" or "absolute" certainty that his work injury was the sole cause of his current medical condition. The findings of fact were therefore based upon an erroneous view of the law and the order refusing to reopen Zander's claim is not in accordance with the law. See N.D.C.C. ยง 28-32-46; cf. Flattum-Riemers v. Peters-Riemers, 2001 ND 121, 10, 630 N.W.2d 71 (findings of fact induced by an erroneous view of the law are clearly erroneous).
[ ] In light of our resolution of this issue, it is unnecessary to address the remaining issues raised by the parties. We reverse the judgment of the district court and remand with directions that the matter be remanded to WSI for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
[ ] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
Carol Ronning Kapsner
Mary Muehlen Maring
William A. Neumann
Dale V. Sandstrom
|