Rosales v. Icicle Seafoods, Inc.

[EMPLOYMENT LAW]

In Rosales v. Icicle Seafoods, Inc.,[1] the supreme court held that the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Board (“Board”) has authority to approve global settlements of related claims in workers’ compensation cases.[2] While working for Icicle Seafoods, Inc. (“Icicle”), Rosales was injured.[3] He filed a report with the Board as well as a maritime lawsuit but later settled all his claims in a global settlement with Icicle, which the Board approved.[4] When the Board subsequently refused to amend the settlement on Rosales’ request, he appealed to the supreme court arguing that the Board’s approval of the global settlement was invalid because it had no jurisdiction over his maritime claim. [5] The supreme court affirmed the Board’s decision, reasoning that even though Rosales could have pursued the two claims separately, the Board was not prohibited from settling both claims.[6] Thus, according to the court, not amending Rosales’ global settlement was proper to bar double recovery for the same claim.[7] Affirming the Board’s decision, the supreme court held that the Board has authority to approve global settlements of related claims in workers’ compensation cases.[8]

 



[1] 316 P.3d 580 (Alaska 2013).

[2] Id. at 585.

[3] Id. at 582.

[4] Id. at 583.

[5] Id. at 583–84.

[6] Id. at 585.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

Rosales v. Icicle Seafoods, Inc.

[EMPLOYMENT LAW]

In Rosales v. Icicle Seafoods, Inc.,[1] the supreme court held that the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Board (“Board”) has authority to approve global settlements of related claims in workers’ compensation cases.[2] While working for Icicle Seafoods, Inc. (“Icicle”), Rosales was injured.[3] He filed a report with the Board as well as a maritime lawsuit but later settled all his claims in a global settlement with Icicle, which the Board approved.[4] When the Board subsequently refused to amend the settlement on Rosales’ request, he appealed to the supreme court arguing that the Board’s approval of the global settlement was invalid because it had no jurisdiction over his maritime claim. [5] The supreme court affirmed the Board’s decision, reasoning that even though Rosales could have pursued the two claims separately, the Board was not prohibited from settling both claims.[6] Thus, according to the court, not amending Rosales’ global settlement was proper to bar double recovery for the same claim.[7] Affirming the Board’s decision, the supreme court held that the Board has authority to approve global settlements of related claims in workers’ compensation cases.[8]

 



[1] 316 P.3d 580 (Alaska 2013).

[2] Id. at 585.

[3] Id. at 582.

[4] Id. at 583.

[5] Id. at 583–84.

[6] Id. at 585.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.