Employment Law

Lovely v. Baker Hughes, Inc.

Posted on April 14th, 2021

EMPLOYMENT LAW Natalie Howard In Lovely v. Baker Hughes, Inc., the supreme court held that for purposes of the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Act (AWCA), a project owner must actually contract with a person to perform specific work as well as enjoy the beneficial use of that work. Several construction workers received workers’ compensation from their Continue Reading »

James v. Alaska Frontier Constructors, Inc.

Posted on March 10th, 2021

EMPLOYMENT LAW Christopher Dodd   James v. Alaska Frontier Constructors, Inc. In James v. Alaska Frontier Constructors, Inc., 468 P.3d 711 (Alaska 2020), the supreme court held that there was insufficient evidence to determine corporate relationships between three companies, and it was therefore inappropriate to grant summary judgement based on immunity under the Alaska Workers’ Continue Reading »

Baker v. Alaska State Commission for Human Rights

Posted on March 10th, 2021

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW EMPLOYMENT LAW Kate Goldberg   Baker v. Alaska State Commission for Human Rights In Baker v. Alaska State Commission for Human Rights, 476 P.3d 1120 (Alaska 2020), the supreme court held a commission’s dismissal of a discrimination complaint was not so arbitrary and capricious as to offend due process (id. at 1127) and Continue Reading »

Adams v. State

Posted on March 10th, 2021

EMPLOYMENT LAW Melissa English   Adams v. State, Workers’ Compensation Benefit Guaranty Fund In Adams v. State, Workers’ Compensation Benefit Guaranty Fund, 467 P.3d 1053 (Alaska 2020), the supreme court held that substantive evidence supported the finding that the property owner engaged in the “business or industry” of “buying, managing, and selling real estate” and Continue Reading »

Buckley v. American Fast Freight, Inc.

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In Buckley v. American Fast Freight, Inc.,[1] the supreme court held that expressly prohibited activities do not fall within the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Act’s definition of “arising out of and in the course of employment.” Buckley worked for Labor Ready, Inc., a temporary employment service. Through Labor Ready, he sometimes worked for American Fast Freight, Continue Reading »

Morrison v. Alaska Interstate Construction Inc.

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In Morrison v. Alaska Interstate Construction Inc.,[1] the supreme court held that the substantial cause test under the 2005 amendments to the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Act requires the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Board to compare the causes of the need for medical treatment and decide compensation issues based on the most important or material cause. Morrison Continue Reading »

Ross v. Alaska State Commission for Human Rights

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In Ross v. Alaska State Commission for Human Rights,[1] the supreme court held an administrative agency’s determination to be without error when, despite evidence detracting from its ultimate decision, the agency concluded there was insufficient evidence to support a claim of discrimination. Ross applied for the position of train master with the Alaska Railroad Corporation Continue Reading »

Rusch v. Southeast Alaska Regional Health Consortium

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In Rusch v. Southeast Alaska Regional Health Consortium,[1] the supreme court held when there is a dispute over the issues on which an employee prevailed for determining attorneys’ fees, the employer in a worker’s compensation settlement has the burden to show lack of merit in the employee’s claims. An attorney represented two injured employees of Continue Reading »

Unisea, Inc. v. Morales de Lopez

Posted on April 14th, 2020

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 Continue Reading »

Warnke-Green v. Pro-West Contractors, LLC

Posted on April 14th, 2020

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 Continue Reading »

Employment Law

Lovely v. Baker Hughes, Inc.

Posted on April 14th, 2021

EMPLOYMENT LAW Natalie Howard In Lovely v. Baker Hughes, Inc., the supreme court held that for purposes of the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Act (AWCA), a project owner must actually contract with a person to perform specific work as well as enjoy the beneficial use of that work. Several construction workers received workers’ compensation from their Continue Reading »

James v. Alaska Frontier Constructors, Inc.

Posted on March 10th, 2021

EMPLOYMENT LAW Christopher Dodd   James v. Alaska Frontier Constructors, Inc. In James v. Alaska Frontier Constructors, Inc., 468 P.3d 711 (Alaska 2020), the supreme court held that there was insufficient evidence to determine corporate relationships between three companies, and it was therefore inappropriate to grant summary judgement based on immunity under the Alaska Workers’ Continue Reading »

Baker v. Alaska State Commission for Human Rights

Posted on March 10th, 2021

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW EMPLOYMENT LAW Kate Goldberg   Baker v. Alaska State Commission for Human Rights In Baker v. Alaska State Commission for Human Rights, 476 P.3d 1120 (Alaska 2020), the supreme court held a commission’s dismissal of a discrimination complaint was not so arbitrary and capricious as to offend due process (id. at 1127) and Continue Reading »

Adams v. State

Posted on March 10th, 2021

EMPLOYMENT LAW Melissa English   Adams v. State, Workers’ Compensation Benefit Guaranty Fund In Adams v. State, Workers’ Compensation Benefit Guaranty Fund, 467 P.3d 1053 (Alaska 2020), the supreme court held that substantive evidence supported the finding that the property owner engaged in the “business or industry” of “buying, managing, and selling real estate” and Continue Reading »

Buckley v. American Fast Freight, Inc.

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In Buckley v. American Fast Freight, Inc.,[1] the supreme court held that expressly prohibited activities do not fall within the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Act’s definition of “arising out of and in the course of employment.” Buckley worked for Labor Ready, Inc., a temporary employment service. Through Labor Ready, he sometimes worked for American Fast Freight, Continue Reading »

Morrison v. Alaska Interstate Construction Inc.

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In Morrison v. Alaska Interstate Construction Inc.,[1] the supreme court held that the substantial cause test under the 2005 amendments to the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Act requires the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Board to compare the causes of the need for medical treatment and decide compensation issues based on the most important or material cause. Morrison Continue Reading »

Ross v. Alaska State Commission for Human Rights

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In Ross v. Alaska State Commission for Human Rights,[1] the supreme court held an administrative agency’s determination to be without error when, despite evidence detracting from its ultimate decision, the agency concluded there was insufficient evidence to support a claim of discrimination. Ross applied for the position of train master with the Alaska Railroad Corporation Continue Reading »

Rusch v. Southeast Alaska Regional Health Consortium

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In Rusch v. Southeast Alaska Regional Health Consortium,[1] the supreme court held when there is a dispute over the issues on which an employee prevailed for determining attorneys’ fees, the employer in a worker’s compensation settlement has the burden to show lack of merit in the employee’s claims. An attorney represented two injured employees of Continue Reading »

Unisea, Inc. v. Morales de Lopez

Posted on April 14th, 2020

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 Continue Reading »

Warnke-Green v. Pro-West Contractors, LLC

Posted on April 14th, 2020

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 Continue Reading »