 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Aleck v. Delvo Plastics Inc.3/12/1999
Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, Sigurd E. Murphy, Judge pro tem.
I. INTRODUCTION
Twenty years after she suffered a work-related injury, Beverly Aleck experienced a worsening of her symptoms. Aleck sought additional benefits from her employer, Delvo Plastics, Inc. The Alaska Workers' Compensation Board dismissed her claim, concluding that her increased disability was time barred because it did not fall within the latent injury exception to the statute of limitations for bringing new claims. We conclude that there was insufficient evidence to support the Board's finding that Aleck failed to exercise reasonable diligence to discover the nature of the injury. We therefore reverse and remand to the Board for a new hearing.
II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
In June 1973, while employed at Delvo Plastics, Inc. (Delvo), Beverly Aleck punctured her left thumb with a stapler. Aleck had suffered from abnormalities in her left thumb since childhood, and a doctor concluded that the stapling accident could have aggravated her prior medical problems.
Aleck's initial injury did not lead to litigation because Delvo voluntarily paid her both temporary total disability (TTD) benefits and partial permanent disability (PPD) benefits. In 1976, after Aleck's doctor increased her permanent disability rating from 50% of her left thumb to 25% of her entire left upper extremity, Delvo again voluntarily paid Aleck additional PPD benefits.
Aleck testified that she "lived with" her injury until 1993, when she began to experience numbness in her arm and noticed breaking blood vessels. Aleck sought medical attention, and in a November 1995 report, Dr. Gary Archer attributed her increased symptoms to her 1973 injury. In August 1996 he increased her PPD rating to 50% of the left upper extremity.
Aleck filed an Application for Adjustment of Claim (AAC) in November 1995, seeking reimbursement for medical costs associated with her new symptoms. She later amended her AAC to seek additional TTD and PPD benefits from Delvo. Delvo petitioned to dismiss her claim, arguing that it was barred by the statute of limitations in AS 23.30.105(a).
After a hearing on the petition to dismiss, the Alaska Workers' Compensation Board, with one member Dissenting, ruled that Aleck's claim was time barred. The Board concluded that Aleck "did not exercise reasonable diligence to more timely discover the full extent of her disability" and therefore rejected her argument that the statute of limitations should be tolled because the increase in her disability was latent. The superior court affirmed, accepting the Board's analysis, and Aleck appeals.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
Because the superior court acted as an intermediate court of appeals in this case, we do not defer to its decision. Instead, "we independently review the merits of an administrative determination." We will "substitute our judgment for that of the Board in reviewing questions of law and statutory interpretation." In particular, we review de novo a ruling on the appropriate statute of limitations.
But determining when Aleck learned of the nature of her disability is a question of fact. We will affirm the Board's factual findings if substantial evidence exists to support them. Evidence is substantial if "a reasonable mind, viewing the record as a whole, might accept as adequate to support the Board's decision."
B. The Board Erred in Dismissing Aleck's Claim as Time Barred.
Aleck initially applied for an adjustment of her claim from a PPD ratin
Page 1 2 3 Alaska Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|