Kim v. Alyeska Seafoods, Inc.

197 P.3d 193 (Alaska 2008) · Supreme Court of Alaska · December 5, 2008 · No. S-12754

Summary

The Alaska Supreme Court considered whether an employee substantially complied with AS 23.30.110(c) by filing a motion for continuance without an affidavit of readiness before the two-year workers' compensation deadline. The court held that the statutory hearing-request provisions are directory rather than mandatory, that substantial compliance may toll the time bar, and that the Workers' Compensation Board has discretion to extend the deadline for good cause. The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

  1. AS 23.30.110(c) is directory rather than mandatory, and strict compliance with its affidavit-of-readiness requirement is not necessary to toll the two-year time bar.
  2. A claimant substantially complies with AS 23.30.110(c) by filing a hearing request within two years, explaining why the claimant cannot truthfully file an affidavit stating readiness for an immediate hearing, and requesting additional time to prepare.
  3. The Board has discretion to grant additional time for a claimant to prepare for a hearing and must determine whether the claimant's reasons have sufficient merit and whether the opposing party would suffer undue prejudice.
  4. The Board's denial could not stand because it failed to fully consider the merits of Kim's request for additional time and any resulting prejudice to Alyeska.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether AS 23.30.110(c) requires strict compliance with its affidavit-of-readiness requirement before a workers' compensation claimant's filing can toll the two-year time bar.
  2. Whether a claimant substantially complies with AS 23.30.110(c) by timely filing a hearing request, explaining the inability to truthfully file an affidavit of readiness, and requesting additional preparation time.
  3. Whether the Workers' Compensation Board has discretion to extend the deadline for filing the paperwork necessary to request an immediate hearing when good cause exists and whether the Board must consider the merits and prejudice associated with the request.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (15)

  • Barrington v. Alaska Commc'n Sys. Group, Inc., 2008 WL 4682644, Op. No. 6321, at 5-6 (Alaska 2008)(followed)
  • Bailey v. Tex. Instruments, Inc., 111 P.3d 321, 323-25 & n.10 (Alaska 2005)(followed)
  • Tipton v. ARCO Alaska, Inc., 922 P.2d 910, 912-13 & n.4 (Alaska 1996)(followed)
  • Seybert v. Cominco Alaska Exploration, 182 P.3d 1079, 1089 (Alaska 2008)(followed)
  • S. Anchorage Concerned Coal., Inc. v. Mun. of Anchorage Bd. of Adjustment, 172 P.3d 768, 772 (Alaska 2007)(followed)
  • In re Wiederholt, 24 P.3d 1219, 1233 (Alaska 2001)(followed)
  • Pan Alaska Trucking, Inc. v. Crouch, 773 P.2d 947, 949 (Alaska 1989)(followed)
  • Jonathan v. Doyon Drilling, Inc., 890 P.2d 1121, 1122 (Alaska 1995)(followed)
  • Suh v. Pingo Corp., 736 P.2d 342, 346 (Alaska 1987)(followed)
  • Morgan v. Alaska Reg'l Hosp., AWCAC Decision No. 035, at 17-18 (Feb. 28, 2007)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 15.

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