Bailey v. Texas Instruments, Inc.

111 P.3d 321 (Alaska 2005) · Supreme Court of Alaska · April 22, 2005 · No. S-11293

Summary

The Supreme Court of Alaska held that the two-year hearing-request deadline under AS 23.30.110(c) applies to workers' compensation medical-benefit claims and is constitutionally valid. It affirmed dismissal of Bailey's 1997 and 1999 claims because he failed to timely request a hearing, but reversed dismissal of his 2001 claim because it concerned medical expenses incurred after the earlier claims and was independently timely.

Holdings

  1. AS 23.30.110(c)'s two-year deadline for requesting a hearing governs Bailey's medical-benefit claims and is constitutionally valid as applied to them.
  2. The 1997 and 1999 claims were properly dismissed as untimely because Bailey did not request a hearing within two years after the applicable controversion dates.
  3. The 2001 claim was independent of the 1997 and 1999 claims and was not time-barred because it sought compensation for medical expenses incurred after the earlier claims and Bailey requested a hearing within two years after its controversion.
  4. The dismissal of Bailey's 1997 and 1999 claims did not preclude him from bringing future claims for narcotics or benzodiazepines based on subsequent medical care and expenses.
  5. AS 23.30.110(c), as applied to Bailey, did not violate substantive due process, procedural due process, or equal protection, and Geophysical had a sufficient good-faith basis for its controversions.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether AS 23.30.110(c)'s two-year deadline for requesting a hearing applied to Bailey's medical-benefit claims.
  2. Whether Bailey's 1999 and 2001 claims merged with his 1997 claim for statute-of-limitations purposes.
  3. Whether Bailey's 1997 and 1999 claims were untimely under AS 23.30.110(c).
  4. Whether Bailey's 2001 claim was timely because it sought compensation for medical expenses incurred after the earlier claims.
  5. Whether AS 23.30.110(c), as applied to Bailey's claims, violated substantive due process, procedural due process, or equal protection.
  6. Whether Geophysical's controversions were made in bad faith.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (10)

  • Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. DeShong, 77 P.3d 1227, 1231 (Alaska 2003)(followed)
  • Law Offices of Steven D. Smith, P.C. v. Borg-Warner Sec. Corp., 993 P.2d 436, 443 (Alaska 1999)(followed)
  • Holding v. Municipality of Anchorage, 63 P.3d 248, 250 (Alaska 2003)(followed)
  • Northern Alaska Envtl. Ctr. v. State, Dep't of Natural Res., 2 P.3d 629, 633 (Alaska 2000)(followed)
  • Williams v. Abood, 53 P.3d 134, 146-47 (Alaska 2002)(followed)
  • Dougan v. Aurora Elec. Inc., 50 P.3d 789, 793, 795 (Alaska 2002)(followed)
  • Grove v. Alaska Constr. & Erectors, 948 P.2d 454, 456 (Alaska 1997)(followed)
  • Robertson v. American Mechanical, Inc., 54 P.3d 777 (Alaska 2002)(distinguished)
  • Jonathan v. Doyon Drilling, Inc., 890 P.2d 1121 (Alaska 1995)(distinguished)
  • Harp v. ARCO Alaska, Inc., 831 P.2d 352, 358 (Alaska 1992)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Alaska Supreme Court