Burke v. Criterion General, Inc.

LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

Adam Beyer

In Burke v. Criterion General, Inc., 499 P.3d 319 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that amendments to the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Act did not violate procedural or substantive due process in allowing project owners and contractors the use of the exclusive remedy defense. (Id. at 320). A worker’s estate had received compensation for funeral expenses as part of the Workers’ Compensation system, but as the deceased had no spouse or dependents, no other death benefits were available. The Estate brought a wrongful death claim against a general contractor and the company that hired it, challenging the 2004 amendments providing general contractors and project owners with the exclusive liability defense as violations of due process. (Id. at 321–22). The supreme court disagreed, explaining that procedural due process was not violated because the amendments did not deny access to courts, instead creating affirmative defenses. (Id. at 323–24). Moreover, the Workers’ Compensation system must be considered as a whole for the purposes of a court-access challenge, and here, a remedy remained available, even though its amount was smaller than the Estate would deem appropriate. (See id. at 336). Similarly, a substantive due process challenge failed because the Estate was unable to prove that the amendments lacked a reasonable relationship to a legitimate government purpose. (Id. at 327). Affirming the ruling of the superior court, the supreme court held that amendments to the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Act did not violate procedural or substantive due process in allowing project owners and contractors the use of the exclusive remedy defense. (Id. at 320).

 

 

Burke v. Criterion General, Inc.

LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

Adam Beyer

In Burke v. Criterion General, Inc., 499 P.3d 319 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that amendments to the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Act did not violate procedural or substantive due process in allowing project owners and contractors the use of the exclusive remedy defense. (Id. at 320). A worker’s estate had received compensation for funeral expenses as part of the Workers’ Compensation system, but as the deceased had no spouse or dependents, no other death benefits were available. The Estate brought a wrongful death claim against a general contractor and the company that hired it, challenging the 2004 amendments providing general contractors and project owners with the exclusive liability defense as violations of due process. (Id. at 321–22). The supreme court disagreed, explaining that procedural due process was not violated because the amendments did not deny access to courts, instead creating affirmative defenses. (Id. at 323–24). Moreover, the Workers’ Compensation system must be considered as a whole for the purposes of a court-access challenge, and here, a remedy remained available, even though its amount was smaller than the Estate would deem appropriate. (See id. at 336). Similarly, a substantive due process challenge failed because the Estate was unable to prove that the amendments lacked a reasonable relationship to a legitimate government purpose. (Id. at 327). Affirming the ruling of the superior court, the supreme court held that amendments to the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Act did not violate procedural or substantive due process in allowing project owners and contractors the use of the exclusive remedy defense. (Id. at 320).