program if the claimant has a reason that would cause a reasonably prudent person to refuse to attend the rehabilitation program under the same or similar circumstances.” Whether a claimant has “good cause” under the statute is determined under an objective, reasonable person standard. See Hoffman, at ¶ 15. [¶ 15] Just as the Bureau has the burden of establishing that a rehabilitation plan is appropriate, see Paul, 2002 ND 96, ¶ 8, 644 N.W.2d 884, the Bureau also has the burden of showing noncompliance with a rehabilitation plan. Once the Bureau establishes noncompliance, it becomes the claimant’s burden to establish good cause for noncompliance. See Fuhrman, 1997 ND 191, ¶ 7, 569 N.W.2d 269; compare Wright v. North Dakota Workers Comp. Bureau, 2001 ND 72, ¶ 25, 625 N.W.2d 256 (<HOLDING>); Maginn v. North Dakota Workers Comp. Bureau,
holding that while the creditor has the initial burden to produce some evidence of lack of good faith the ultimate burden is on the debtor to prove his good faith holding that the party asserting notice error has the burden of demonstrating prejudice holding that the burden of proof is on the claimant holding claimant has burden of demonstrating a good faith work search holding that duty of good faith and fair dealing did not extend to thirdparty claimant