Default Venue for Administrative Appeals: Primacy of N.D.C.C. § 28-32-42 in WSI v. Jones

Introduction

In WSI v. Jones, 2025 ND 74, the Supreme Court of North Dakota addressed a recurring procedural question: where may Workforce Safety and Insurance (“WSI”) file an appeal from an administrative law judge’s order when Title 65 of the North Dakota Century Code is silent as to venue? The case arose after WSI terminated benefits for Russell C. Jones, who had been injured on the job. Following an administrative hearing conducted by a Minnesota‐based ALJ (with participants scattered across multiple states, including Wisconsin and North Dakota), WSI appealed to the District Court of Burleigh County. Jones moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, contending Title 65 prescribed Mountrail County (where the injury occurred) or his residence county. The district court agreed and dismissed. WSI then sought review in the state’s highest court. The key issue: whether Title 65’s silence on the organization’s own appeals means the Administrative Agencies Practice Act’s default venue provision (N.D.C.C. ch. 28-32) controls.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded the matter for further proceedings. The Court held that:

Title 65 does not designate a specific county in which WSI must file its own appeals;
Chapter 28-32 of the Administrative Agencies Practice Act provides a “catch-all” or default rule: if no statute specifies venue, an appeal lies in the district court of the county where the administrative hearing (or part thereof) was held;
It was undisputed that part of the record hearing (the deposition of a physician) took place in Bismarck (Burleigh County), satisfying § 28-32-42(3)(a);
Accordingly, the District Court of Burleigh County had jurisdiction and its dismissal for lack of venue was error.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court’s analysis invoked several key authorities:

Decker v. Workforce Safety & Insurance (2021 ND 117): Administrative appeals are purely statutory and subject to jurisdictional prerequisites.
Transystems Services v. N.D. Workers Comp. Bureau (550 N.W.2d 66): Confirmed district courts exercise appellate, not original, jurisdiction over administrative appeals.
Benson v. Workforce Safety & Insurance (2003 ND 193): Jurisdictional requirements for appeals are strictly construed; wrong venue nullifies subject-matter jurisdiction.
Lavallie v. Jay (2020 ND 147): Jurisdictional questions are reviewed de novo where facts are undisputed.
Statutory-interpretation cases (RMM Props., Fahey, Estate of Brandt): Guided the Court’s approach to plain language, harmonization, and avoidance of statutory conflict.
Westman v. N.D. Workers Comp. Bureau (459 N.W.2d 540): Harmonized appeal provisions in Title 65 and the Administrative Agencies Practice Act.
Boyko v. N.D. Workmen’s Comp. Bureau (409 N.W.2d 638): Characterized the default provision as the “catch‐all” that becomes “operational” when no other statute designates venue.

Legal Reasoning

The Court began with the foundational principle that appeal rights of administrative orders are statutory, and statutory venue provisions are jurisdictional. Title 65, while prescribing venues for claimants, employers, and certain extraterritorial cases, remains silent on where WSI itself may appeal. The 2009 legislative amendment—to clarify that Chapter 65-10 does not preclude WSI from appealing—does not, by its plain text, prescribe a location for those appeals. The Court then turned to the Administrative Agencies Practice Act (N.D.C.C. ch. 28-32), which expressly provides default rules in § 28-32-42(3)(a): absent other direction, venue lies in the county where the hearing (or part of it) was held; if no hearing occurred, venue is Burleigh County. Because a part of the hearing occurred in Bismarck (Burleigh County), under the Act the district court had proper jurisdiction.

Impact

The decision establishes clear guidance for litigants and practitioners on administrative-appeal venue in North Dakota:

It confirms that WSI appeals—like any agency appeal not otherwise covered—must follow the default venue rule in § 28-32-42.
It discourages forum shopping by requiring appeals to be filed in the jurisdiction connected to the administrative record-gathering process.
It underscores the importance of statutory harmonization: Title 65’s silence permits the broader Administrative Agencies Practice Act to govern venue.
Future administrative appeals against WSI decisions will routinely be filed in districts where hearings (or portions) occur, unless a statute explicitly provides otherwise.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Administrative Appeal: A review of an agency’s decision by a court rather than by the agency itself.
Jurisdictional Requirements: Statutory conditions that must be satisfied before a court may hear a case; failure to meet them deprives the court of authority.
Default Venue Provision: A catch-all statute that fills in gaps when no specific law tells litigants where to file.
Statutory Harmonization: The interpretive principle that related statutes should be read together to give effect to each.

Conclusion

WSI v. Jones clarifies that in North Dakota, when Title 65 does not specify a county for an administrative appeal by WSI, the Administrative Agencies Practice Act’s default venue provision (N.D.C.C. § 28-32-42) controls. By anchoring venue to the county where the hearing (or part thereof) occurred, the Court has provided certainty and consistency in administrative litigation. This ruling underscores the jurisdictional nature of venue statutes and the primacy of statutory text in resolving procedural disputes.