In Warnke-Green v. Pro-West Contractors, LLC,[1] the supreme court held the Alaska Worker’s Compensation Appeals Commission has the necessary incidental authority to reconsider its own non-final decisions. A worker injured in a work related accident won his appealed the decision of the Alaska Worker Compensation Board on the compensability of a modifiable van. After his successful appeal to the Alaska Worker’s Compensation Appeals Commission, the injured worker requested attorney’s fees. The Appeals Commission awarded him less than half of what he had requested in attorney’s fees. The Commission declined the worker’s request to reconsider the award on the grounds that in its view the Alaska Worker’s Compensation Act (“Act”) only allowed them to reconsider the final decision on the merits of an appeal. The Court reversed the Commission’s position that it could not reconsider, reasoning that, though the Alaska Worker’s Compensation Act’s relevant appeals section does not explicitly address any appeals other than those on the final merits, the power to reconsider its own non-final orders is included by implication. The court further reasoned that interpreting the Act consistent with the Commission having this implicit authority was consistent with the purpose of the Act, its own precedents in Monzulla v. Voorhees Concrete Cutting, and considerations of judicial efficiency in light of the requirement of exhaustion of administrative remedies. The Court also noted that procedurally reconsideration may be the only opportunity a party has to respond since the Commission’s regulations governing motions do not allow replies to opposition. Reversing the Alaska Worker’s Compensation Appeals Commission, the supreme court held that the Act does not prohibit the Commission from reconsidering orders other than final decisions specifically described in the Act because that authority is necessarily incident in the Commission’s express authority to “issue orders as appropriate.”
[1] 440 P.3d 283 (Alaska 2019).
