 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Boyd v. Arctic Slop Native Association Insurance Co.6/23/2004
basis for Boyd's claim. On April 14, 2000, the Board held a hearing to discuss various motions to exclude evidence before the Board. On September 15, 2000, the Board issued an interlocutory decision and order with respect to the discovery disputes. The Board denied all of the employer's petitions to exclude evidence, and sanctioned Arctic Slope for its late production of the Bean Report by stating that it would draw all possible inferences from the report in favor of Boyd.
On March 8, 2001, the Board issued its final decision and order on the merits of Boyd's claim. The Board held that she was not entitled to further compensation, finding both that her current condition was not caused by the work incident and that her psychiatric condition was a more plausible cause for her condition. Designated Chairperson Fred Brown, who was not present to hear the testimony, dissented from the decision. Brown concluded that Boyd suffered a compensable injury based on the testimony of her treating physicians and her good work history.
Boyd appealed the decision to the superior court, which entered a memorandum decision upholding the Board on all issues. In the superior court, Boyd argued both her due process claims and that the Board's findings were not supported by substantial evidence. In her appeal to this court, Boyd only briefs due process claims and claims that the Board failed to make adequate findings.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
When reviewing a decision from the superior court acting as an intermediate court of appeals from a decision of the Board, we directly review the Board's decision. On questions of constitutional law, we substitute our own judgment, adopting "the rule of law that is most persuasive in light of precedent, reason, and policy."
IV. DISCUSSION
Boyd argues that the Board failed to engage in reasoned decision-making and to make adequate findings.
This court reviews administrative findings to see if they are sufficient to facilitate meaningful judicial review. When the Board fails to make a necessary finding, the court cannot fill the gap by making its own determination from the record; it must remand to the Board. However, the Board does not have to address every minor issue. It need only make findings regarding issues that are material and contested.
To be material an issue must affect a right to compensation. In order to be contested, the claimant must provide some evidence beyond mere assertions. In Stephens v. ITT/Felec Services, this court remanded to the Board because its findings were conclusory and did not mention a material dispute or even acknowledge the relevant testimony going to that issue. But this does not mean that findings have to be exhaustive. In Carlson v. Doyon Universal-Ogdon Services, we approved findings that, although terse, "addressed the critical issue in the case" and acknowledged the testimony of Carlson's expert. In this case we must determine whether the Board's findings are more analogous to those found in Stephens or in Carlson.
A. The Board Failed To Make Sufficient Findings with Respect to the Bean Report and with Respect to Dr. Wolf's Testimony.
Boyd argues that the Board's findings are defective in two important ways: the first was that the Board failed to make findings of fact to support its rejection of Dr. Wolf's testimony that Boyd did not have somatization disorder. The second is that the Board failed to explain what inferences were drawn from the Bean Report. We agree with these arguments and address each in turn.
The Board's only mention of Dr. Wolf in its decision is to state that he diagnosed Boyd with a dysthymic
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Alaska Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|