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 »
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 »
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 »
In Dodge v. Meyer,[1] the supreme court held it proper to not count an election ballot with filled-in ovals next to both candidates’ names and an ‘X’ over one of the filled-in ovals. The initial vote count of the 2018 race for the District 1 seat in the Alaska House of Representatives gave candidates Dodge Continue Reading »
In Anderson v. State,[1] the supreme court held a police officer validly seized the defendant’s clothing without a warrant because the officer saw the clothing in open view and had probable cause to believe the clothing was evidence of a crime. In the course of breaking into a home, Anderson injured the home’s occupants, and Continue Reading »
In Baker v. Duffus,[1] the supreme court found that the superior court erred in granting partial summary judgment by not considering whether counterclaims brought were compulsory to an amended cross-complaint, rather than the original cross-complaint, and therefore whether they related back to the original cross-complaint. Baker and Duffus were business partners in a limited liability Continue Reading »
In Blalock v. State,[1] the appeals court held that due to absence of clear legislative intent for it to have retroactive effect the “Stand Your Ground” amendment’s changes to self-defense law did not apply retroactively. After conviction for second degree murder, Blalock challenged, inter alia, the refusal of the lower court to instruct the jury Continue Reading »
In Good v. Municipality of Anchorage,[1] the court of appeals held that AS 29.25.070(g) did not repeal the exceptions against munipal impounding of motor vehicles previously created by the legistlature in AS 28.01.015. Under AS 28.01.010(a), municipalities are restricted from enacting ordinances tha are inconsistent with Alaska’s state motor vehicle laws in Title 28. The Continue Reading »
In Inga v. State,[1] the appellate court held that there was sufficient evidence to find that the defendant’s act of grabbing victim’s breasts immediately before beating her was coercion by force and not among the least serious conduct included in the definition of second-degree sexual assault. Defendant Inga, who had been violent toward the victim Continue Reading »
In Jackson v. Borough of Haines,[1] the supreme court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded attorney’s fees in the defendant’s malicious prosecution action. Jackson was charged with disorderly conduct, assault, and resisting arrest in 2012. After a first mistrial, Jackson was convicted of all charges, although the conviction Continue Reading »
