Manske v. Workforce

9 Citing cases

  1. Curran v. N.D. Workforce Safety Ins

    2010 N.D. 227 (N.D. 2010)   Cited 4 times

    N.D.C.C. § 65-01-11; Bergum v. N.D. Workforce Safety Ins., 2009 ND 52, ¶ 11, 764 N.W.2d 178. "To carry this burden, a claimant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the medical condition fop/which benefits are sought is causally related to a work injury." Id.; see Manske v. Workforce Safety Ins., 2008 ND 79, ¶ 9, 748 N.W.2d 394. [¶ 20] Under N.D.C.C. § 65-01-02(10)(b), preexisting injuries are generally excluded from the definition of compensable injury:

  2. Swenson v. Workforce Safety Insurance Fund

    775 N.W.2d 700 (N.D. 2009)

    [¶ 14] Swenson contends Dr. Simonet improperly focused on non-work risk factors in attributing a cause for his cervical and thoracic conditions, and by adopting Dr. Simonet's opinion, WSI also improperly focused on non-work risk factors. Swenson relies on Manske v. Workforce Safety and Ins., 2008 ND 79, 748 N.W.2d 394, in which this Court noted: We have said, in a long line of cases, that a worker's employment need not be the sole cause of an injury to be compensable.

  3. Parsons v. Workforce Safety & Ins. Fund

    2013 N.D. 235 (N.D. 2013)   Cited 3 times

    The ALJ misapplied the law in finding the injury was attributable to Parsons' preexisting condition because the preexisting condition made him more susceptible to the injury. We have said “ ‘the fact that an employee may have physical conditions or personal habits' which make him or her more prone to such an injury does not constitute a sufficient reason for denying a claim if the preponderance of the evidence indicates that the injury ‘was causally related to the worker's employment, with reasonable medical certainty.’ ” Satrom v. North Dakota Workmen's Comp. Bureau, 328 N.W.2d 824, 831 (N.D.1982) (quoting Nelson v. North Dakota Workmen's Comp. Bureau, 316 N.W.2d 790, 795 (N.D.1982)); see also Manske v. Workforce Safety and Ins., 2008 ND 79, ¶ 12, 748 N.W.2d 394. Parsons' susceptibility to the injury because of his preexisting condition did not make the injury attributable to the preexisting condition. Rather, there must be some evidence that the injury triggered symptoms in his preexisting condition or some other evidence that his current condition was attributable to the preexisting condition.

  4. Albright v. Safety

    833 N.W.2d 1 (N.D. 2013)   Cited 1 times

    Unser v. N.D. Workers Comp. Bureau, 1999 ND 129, ¶ 22, 598 N.W.2d 89. In doing so, she must show the condition for which benefits are sought is causally related to a work injury. Manske v. Workforce Safety & Ins., 2008 ND 79, ¶ 9, 748 N.W.2d 394. “To establish a [causal] connection, a claimant must demonstrate the claimant's employment was a substantial contributing factor to the injury and need not show employment was the sole cause of the injury.” Mickelson, 2012 ND 164, ¶ 11, 820 N.W.2d 333 (citation omitted). Section 65–01–02(10), N.D.C.C., defines “[c]ompensable injury” as “an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of hazardous employment which must be established by medical evidence supported by objective medical findings.

  5. Mickelson v. N.D. Workforce Safety & Ins.

    2012 N.D. 164 (N.D. 2012)   Cited 10 times
    In Mickelson, there was medical evidence supported by objective medical findings from the claimant’s treating providers which stated his latent condition was directly related to his employment.

    “A claimant seeking workforce safety and insurance benefits has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the claimant has suffered a compensable injury and is entitled to benefits. N.D.C.C. § 65–01–11; Manske v. Workforce Safety & Ins., 2008 ND 79, ¶ 9, 748 N.W.2d 394. To carry this burden, a claimant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the medical condition for which benefits are sought is causally related to a work injury. Manske, ¶ 9;Swenson [ v. Workforce Safety & Ins. Fund ], 2007 ND 149, ¶ 24, 738 N.W.2d 892.

  6. Johnson v. North Dakota Workforce Safety Insurance

    2010 N.D. 198 (N.D. 2010)   Cited 3 times

    [¶ 13] In seeking WSI benefits, a claimant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the claimant has suffered a "compensable injury" and is entitled to benefits. N.D.C.C. § 65-01-11; Manske v. Workforce Safety Ins., 2008 ND 79, ¶ 9, 748 N.W.2d 394. Section 65-05-08(1), N.D.C.C. addresses reapplication for disability benefits, and states:

  7. Workforce Safety & Insurance v. Auck

    2010 N.D. 126 (N.D. 2010)   Cited 20 times

    [¶ 7] As the claimant, the surviving spouse had the burden below of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Auck suffered a compensable injury and that she was entitled to workers' compensation benefits. N.D.C.C. § 65-01-11; Manske v. Workforce Safety Ins., 2008 ND 79, ¶ 9, 748 N.W.2d 394. A "compensable injury" is an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of hazardous employment that must be established by medical evidence supported by objective medical findings. N.D.C.C. § 65-01-02(10).

  8. Bergum v. North Dakota Workforce Safety & Insurance

    2009 N.D. 52 (N.D. 2009)   Cited 27 times
    Discussing N.D.C.C. § 65-01-02(b)

    [¶ 11] A claimant seeking workforce safety and insurance benefits has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the claimant has suffered a compensable injury and is entitled to benefits. N.D.C.C. § 65-01-11; Manske v. Workforce Safety Ins., 2008 ND 79, ¶ 9, 748 N.W.2d 394. To carry this burden, a claimant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the medical condition for which benefits are sought is causally related to a work injury. Manske, ¶ 9; Swenson, 2007 ND 149, ¶ 24, 738 N.W.2d 892.

  9. Bruder v. North Dakota Workforce Safety

    2009 N.D. 23 (N.D. 2009)   Cited 16 times

    [¶ 8] A claimant for workers compensation benefits has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he suffered a compensable injury and is entitled to benefits. N.D.C.C. § 65-01-11; Manske v. Workforce Safety and Ins., 2008 ND 79, ¶ 9, 748 N.W.2d 394; Swenson v. Workforce Safety and Ins.Fund, 2007 ND 149, ¶ 24, 738 N.W.2d 892. To meet this burden, the claimant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the medical condition for which he seeks benefits is causally related to a work injury.