Griffiths v. Andy's Body & Frame, Inc.

Summary

The Supreme Court of Alaska held that the Workers' Compensation Board abused its discretion by dismissing Griffiths's petition for modification based on his failure to provide a due-diligence affidavit. Because the Board's prior decision expressly advised Griffiths that he could obtain a favorable permanent partial impairment rating and seek modification, he reasonably expected that a timely petition would suffice without an additional explanation. The court vacated the Board's decision and remanded for consideration of the merits.

Holdings

1. The Workers' Compensation Board abused its discretion by invoking 8 AAC 45.150(d) to dismiss Griffiths's petition because its prior order expressly permitted him to seek modification after obtaining a favorable permanent partial impairment rating, and a reasonable worker in his position could understand that instruction to permit a petition within one year without an additional due-diligence explanation.
2. The Board's dismissal decision must be vacated, and the matter must be remanded for the Board to decide, based on the evidence in the record after the hearing, whether Griffiths had a ratable permanent impairment entitling him to reemployment benefits.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Workers' Compensation Board abused its discretion by dismissing Griffiths's petition for modification for failure to include the due-diligence affidavit required by 8 AAC 45.150(d).
2. Whether the Board's prior order, which expressly stated that Griffiths could seek modification after obtaining a favorable permanent partial impairment rating, created a reasonable procedural expectation that he could file such a petition within the applicable one-year period without separately explaining why an earlier rating could not have been obtained.

Disposition

vacated