 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Justice v. RMH Aero Logging2/15/2002
eshold test. If Gilmore's holding was clearly foreshadowed, the rule will apply retroactively; if, on the other hand, the question answered by Gilmore was "subject to rational disagreement," we must address the remaining factors.
Gilmore was our first decision addressing the constitutionality of former AS 23.30.220(a). Furthermore, because Gilmore did not hold that AS 23.30.220(a) was facially unconstitutional, but only that the statute as the board applied it to Gilmore violated the equal protection clause of the Alaska Constitution, the outcome in Gilmore was arguably "subject to rational disagreement." We therefore conclude that Byayuk's threshold test is met and proceed to consider the remaining criteria.
The second Byayuk factor - whether the purpose and intended effect of the new rule of law is best accomplished by a retroactive or exclusively prospective application - "is the single most important criterion to use in determining whether to apply a new rule of law retroactively . . . ." The parties agree that Gilmore's purpose, like the overall purpose of AS 23.30.220(a), is to ensure "a fair approximation of a claimant's probable future earning capacity during the period in which compensation benefits are to be paid." Because a purely prospective application of Gilmore would deprive certain workers, such as Justice, of workers' compensation benefits based on a fair approximation of future earning capacity, Gilmore's purpose is best accomplished by applying it retroactively.
The third Byayuk factor - the extent of reasonable reliance on the old rule of law - "is used to further weigh the merits of a [purely] prospective application and also to set the limits of retroactivity." However, "this factor is of minimal importance where the purpose and intended effect of the new rule of law clearly justifies a retroactive application." Furthermore, we have held that " ` n insurer's reliance interest is insufficient to [defeat retroactive] application of a change in the law unless the insurer presents a compelling case of grave financial consequences.' " RMH argues that "the cost of opening and litigating all prior claims under former [AS 23.30.220(a)] . . . constitutes a grave financial circumstance." But opening and litigating all prior claims is not the effect of limited retroactivity. Limited retroactivity does not reopen final judgments; instead, it applies the new rule only to cases still open to adjudication. RMH has not demonstrated that grave financial circumstances would result from this limited retroactive application of the Gilmore decision.
The fourth Byayuk factor - the effect on the administration of justice of retroactively applying the new rule of law - is "useful in determining not only whether a new rule should apply retroactively but also how far the application should extend." RMH argues that retroactively applying Gilmore would burden the entire workers' compensation system by allowing the relitigation of "all prior workers' compensation payments under former AS 23.30.220(a)." We disagree. Because we hold below that Gilmore is retroactively applicable only to cases which remain open to adjudication, final judgments and other cases not open to adjudication will not be subject to relitigation. Furthermore, we have previously noted that "the fact that retroactive application of [a new rule of law] may increase the number of suits is not sufficient reason to limit retroactive application . . . . An increase in the amount of justice should not be recognized as a burden on the administration of justice." Thus, the final Byayuk factor does not weigh against retroactive application.
2. To what extent should Gilmore be retroactively app
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.
|
|