Background
Michael Januszewski, a Minnesota resident, sought workers’ compensation benefits from North Dakota Workforce Safety and Insurance (WSI). WSI denied his claim and imposed a forfeiture penalty under N.D.C.C. § 65-05-33, finding that Januszewski had willfully made false statements in connection with his benefits claim. An administrative law judge (ALJ) upheld WSI’s decision following an administrative hearing.
Januszewski appealed to the District Court of Grand Forks County, which affirmed the ALJ’s order. He then appealed to the North Dakota Supreme Court, challenging both the weight of the evidence supporting the ALJ’s willfulness finding and arguing that WSI failed to prove his false statements were material to his claim.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court summarily affirmed the district court’s judgment under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(5). The court held that the ALJ’s findings—including the willfulness determination—were supported by a preponderance of the evidence, as required under N.D.C.C. §§ 28-32-46(5) and 28-32-49.
The court declined to reach Januszewski’s materiality argument because he failed to support it with citations to the record or applicable legal authority. Citing State v. Haibeck, 2006 ND 100, ¶ 9, 714 N.W.2d 52, the court reiterated its longstanding rule that inadequately briefed arguments will not be considered.
Key Takeaways
- A claimant who willfully makes false statements in connection with a workers’ compensation claim is subject to forfeiture of benefits under N.D.C.C. § 65-05-33, and the ALJ’s willfulness finding will be upheld if supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
- Appellate arguments unsupported by record citations or legal authority will not be addressed by the North Dakota Supreme Court—inadequate briefing forfeits the argument.
- Summary affirmance under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(5) is available where the evidence supports the agency’s findings and remaining arguments are insufficiently briefed.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the serious consequences claimants face when they make willful misrepresentations to obtain workers’ compensation benefits in North Dakota. The forfeiture penalty under N.D.C.C. § 65-05-33 is a meaningful deterrent, and courts will sustain it when the evidentiary record supports an ALJ’s willfulness determination.
The case also serves as a reminder of the procedural discipline required on appeal. Arguments not properly developed and supported in an appellate brief—regardless of their potential merit—will be waived, leaving the administrative decision intact.