State of Alaska, Department of Fish and Game v. Kacyon

31 P.3d 1276 (Alaska 2001) · Supreme Court of Alaska · October 5, 2001 · No. No. S-9433

Summary

The Alaska Supreme Court interpreted Alaska Statute 23.30.015(g) and (h), governing workers' compensation benefits and third-party recoveries. The court held that judicial approval of a minor's settlement does not necessarily remove the settlement from the statute's compromise provisions, but determined that the global settlement was the relevant compromise under the circumstances. The court reversed and remanded, directing the Workers' Compensation Board to vacate its order requiring full benefit payments to resume after exhaustion of the minor's allocated share.

Holdings

  1. Judicial approval of a compromise affecting a minor does not necessarily remove the compromise from Alaska Statute 23.30.015(h). A Civil Rule 90.2 proceeding determines only whether settlement terms are fair and reasonable and is not equivalent to an adversarial judicial determination of damages.
  2. Under the circumstances of this case, the global $1.2 million settlement was the relevant compromise under Alaska Statute 23.30.015(h), not the subsequent allocation of proceeds to Jeremiah.
  3. The Board erred by requiring full payments to Jeremiah to resume when the amount allocated to him from the global settlement was exhausted. Jeremiah was entitled only to reimbursement for costs and fees equal to thirty percent of the compensation he otherwise would have received, subject to appropriate offsets for overpayments.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether judicial approval of a minor beneficiary's settlement allocation under Alaska Civil Rule 90.2 removes the settlement from the definition of a compromise under Alaska Statute 23.30.015(h).
  2. Whether the relevant compromise under Alaska Statute 23.30.015(h) was the global third-party settlement or the subsequent allocation of settlement proceeds to Jeremiah.
  3. Whether the State remained obligated to pay Jeremiah full future workers' compensation benefits after the amount allocated to him from the settlement was exhausted.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (8)

  • Stone v. Fluid Air Components of Alaska, 990 P.2d 621 (Alaska 1999)(followed)
  • Cooper v. Argonaut Insurance Companies, 556 P.2d 525 (Alaska 1976)(followed)
  • Horsford v. Estate of Horsford, 561 P.2d 722, 727 (Alaska 1977)(followed)
  • Banks v. Chicago Grain Trimmers Ass'n, 390 U.S. 459, 466-67 (1968)(persuasive)
  • Morauer & Hartzell, Inc. v. Woodworth, 439 F.2d 550, 553 (D.C. Cir. 1970)(persuasive)
  • In re Estate of Brandon, 902 P.2d 1299, 1310 (Alaska 1995)(followed)
  • Bell v. O'Hearne, 284 F.2d 777, 781 (4th Cir. 1960)(followed)
  • Gossett v. ERA Meyers Real Estate, 787 P.2d 1025, 1026-27 (Alaska 1990)(distinguished)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…