Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Appellant Richard Landrum appealed a district court judgment affirming an order of Appellee Workforce Safety and Insurance (WSI) which denied him benefits. Appellant received pain management care sporadically for a series of work related injuries stemming from 1990 until 2001. In 2001, Appellant began to see Dr. John Daugherty for pain from headaches, low back and leg problems and vision problems. In 2002, Dr. Daugherty prescribed Viagra to treat Defendant's sexual dysfunction. WSI questioned the Viagra prescription's connection to the 1990 work injury, and Dr. Daugherty sent WSI a letter indicating a causal connection between the work injury and Appellant's sexual dysfunction. WSI denied payment for the Viagra, ultimately issuing an order denying benefits for the Viagra. Appellant sought reconsideration of the order and requested a formal hearing, after which an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") determined WSI was not liable for the Viagra because another Workers' Compensation Commission already awarded benefits for the Viagra. In April of 2009, WSI determined Appellant's vision problems were not causally connected to the 1990 work injury. Accordingly, WSI refused to pay for treatment regarding Appellant's vision problems. Appellant asked WSI to reconsider this denial of benefits. In the meantime, after a review of Landrum's medical records by WSI's independent medical consultant, WSI also denied benefits concerning Landrum's headaches. An ALJ held a formal hearing where Dr. Peterson testified why Landrum's 1990 work injury was not the cause of his headaches and vision problems. Ultimately, the ALJ upheld WSI's decision denying payment for Appellant's treatment for his headaches and vision problems. Appellant appealed to the district court, which affirmed the ALJ's order. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Appellant argued WSI's 2009 denial of benefits for his headaches and vision problems is barred by administrative res judicata because WSI considered, or should have considered, these benefits during the proceeding in 2004 when WSI refused to pay for Viagra. The Supreme Court concluded that administrative res judicata did not bar WSI from denying further benefits and that a reasonable fact-finder could have concluded that Appellant failed to prove his work injury was a substantial, contributing factor to his headaches and vision problems.

Plaintiff Richard Spratt appealed a district court summary judgment that dismissed his age discrimination claim against MDU Resources Group, Inc. ("MDU"). In 2001, Plaintiff was hired as the vice president of human resources for Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., a division of MDU. Plaintiff claimed that in 2007 the president and chief executive officer of MDU told him two high-ranking executives at MDU were "out to get" Plaintiff, and he needed to "watch [his] step.â Plaintiff further claimed that when he asked the president why they were out to get him, the president responded he thought it was because of "these fights that you're fighting . . . with corporate" and because "[y]ou're too old and you make too much money." Plaintiff further contended that the president reassured him he did not need to worry about losing his job because "[y]ou're all right as long as I'm here." In March 2008, the company got a new president. In April, Plaintiff was advised that his position was being eliminated as a result of a reorganization of the human resources function at MDU. Plaintiff was offered the option of resigning and receiving a severance package. He refused and was terminated effective April 3, 2008, at age fifty-nine. MDU contended elimination of Plaintiffâs position was part of a comprehensive reorganization of the human resources function at MDU. Furthermore, MDU argued that although Plaintiffâs was the first position eliminated, two human resources positions at another MDU division were eliminated within one month of Plaintiffâs termination. Plaintiff sued MDU, alleging he was wrongfully terminated based upon his age in violation of the North Dakota Human Rights Act. MDU moved for summary judgment, alleging Plaintiff could not meet his burden of establishing a case of age discrimination. The district court granted summary judgment dismissing Plaintiffâs claim. The Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in determining that Plaintiff failed meet his burden of proof, and it upheld the lower courtâs grant of summary judgment.