Unisea, Inc. v. Morales de Lopez

In Unisea, Inc. v. Morales de Lopez,[1] the supreme court held that an employer must pay job dislocation benefits after receiving a Permanent Partial Impairment (PPI) rating and must pay PPI compensation after each employer’s medical evaluation (EME) rating. Claimant Morales sustained on-the-job injuries, causing her orthopedic and psychiatric problems. In November 2014, Morales received her first EME, which indicated a 5% whole person permanent impairment from her orthopedic problems; one year later, Morales received a second EME from a psychiatrist who rated her as having a 10% impairment. Unisea did not pay Morales her job dislocation benefit or PPI compensation until February 2016, when it received, upon its request, an addendum from the psychiatrist. The addendum clarified that the 10% impairment rating was a whole person rating that, when combined with the orthopedic impairment, would be a 15% whole person impairment rating. On appeal, Unisea contended that it was not required to pay the job dislocation benefit until February 2016, when it received the addendum, because Morales did not have a combined whole person rating until then. It similarly contended that PPI compensation is due only after all conditions receive a maximum medical improvement (MMI) rating and a combined impairment is calculated, in part because Alaska law says that PPI compensation is “payable in a single lump sum.” The supreme court rejected these arguments. Regarding the job dislocation benefit, the court held that Alaska law conditions payment on receiving a PPI rating, not a final, combined rating. Regarding the PPI compensation, the court held that Alaska law did not require all conditions to be at MMI before any condition can be rated. Furthermore, the court rejected Unisea’s “single lump sum” argument, holding that this language merely distinguishes PPI compensation as a payment for impairment, rather than disability. Affirming the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Commission, the supreme court held that job dislocation benefit and PPI compensation is due upon notice of the first impairment rating and further compensation is due upon notice of subsequent impairment ratings.

[1] 435 P.3d 961 (Alaska 2019).

Unisea, Inc. v. Morales de Lopez

In Unisea, Inc. v. Morales de Lopez,[1] the supreme court held that an employer must pay job dislocation benefits after receiving a Permanent Partial Impairment (PPI) rating and must pay PPI compensation after each employer’s medical evaluation (EME) rating. Claimant Morales sustained on-the-job injuries, causing her orthopedic and psychiatric problems. In November 2014, Morales received her first EME, which indicated a 5% whole person permanent impairment from her orthopedic problems; one year later, Morales received a second EME from a psychiatrist who rated her as having a 10% impairment. Unisea did not pay Morales her job dislocation benefit or PPI compensation until February 2016, when it received, upon its request, an addendum from the psychiatrist. The addendum clarified that the 10% impairment rating was a whole person rating that, when combined with the orthopedic impairment, would be a 15% whole person impairment rating. On appeal, Unisea contended that it was not required to pay the job dislocation benefit until February 2016, when it received the addendum, because Morales did not have a combined whole person rating until then. It similarly contended that PPI compensation is due only after all conditions receive a maximum medical improvement (MMI) rating and a combined impairment is calculated, in part because Alaska law says that PPI compensation is “payable in a single lump sum.” The supreme court rejected these arguments. Regarding the job dislocation benefit, the court held that Alaska law conditions payment on receiving a PPI rating, not a final, combined rating. Regarding the PPI compensation, the court held that Alaska law did not require all conditions to be at MMI before any condition can be rated. Furthermore, the court rejected Unisea’s “single lump sum” argument, holding that this language merely distinguishes PPI compensation as a payment for impairment, rather than disability. Affirming the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Commission, the supreme court held that job dislocation benefit and PPI compensation is due upon notice of the first impairment rating and further compensation is due upon notice of subsequent impairment ratings.

[1] 435 P.3d 961 (Alaska 2019).