EMPLOYMENT LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2024)
Holly Merrill
In Jesperson v. Tri-City Air, 547 P.3d 1042 (Alaska 2024), the supreme court held that the Alaska Worker’s Compensation Board did not abuse its discretion, and that there was substantial evidence to support its decision to deny a pilot’s worker’s compensation for medical care rendered over 30 years after the underlying injury. (Id. at 1052). In 1985, Jesperson was flying for Tri-City Air when his plane crashed, resulting in spinal injuries. (Id. at 1044). Jesperson received compensation from Tri-City Air from 1985–87. (Id. at 1046). In 2018, Jesperson filed a worker’s compensation claim with the Board. (Id.). Jesperson claimed that his 2016 back surgery and ancillary diabetes treatment could be traced back to the 1985 accident and requested reimbursement. (Id.). At the evidentiary hearing, multiple expert witnesses testified. (Id. at 1048–49). The Board denied Jesperson’s claim, and the Appeals Commission upheld its decision on appeal. (Id. at 1050–51). On appeal to the Alaska Supreme Court, the Court held that substantial evidence supported the Board’s decision when it assigned significant weight to two medical experts who testified persuasively that the 1985 injury was not a substantial cause of Jesperson’s later medical needs, while discounting Jesperson’s medical experts to the contrary. (Id. at 1052). It further held that the Board had properly excluded one of Jesperson’s proffered medical experts when Jesperson failed to follow Board regulations regarding disclosure of witnesses to Tri-City Air, despite having the notice and opportunity to do so. (Id.). Finally, the Court held that because Jesperson’s primary claim had failed, his claim for diabetes care ancillary to the surgery was properly denied as well. (Id.). Affirming the Commission’s ruling, the Court concluded that the Board’s denial of Jesperson’s worker’s compensation claim was not an abuse of discretion and was supported by substantial evidence. (Id. at 1052).
