 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lindhag v. State10/7/2005
luator's opinions the preponderance of the evidence and make our findings and conclusions accordingly.
First, we recognize Dr. Scott based her conclusions about the nature and likely causes of the employee's conditions upon a reasonable degree of medical certainty. She acknowledged her review of approximately 800 pages of medical records regarding the employee's conditions. Moreover, her report makes specific reference to those medical records where appropriate. Thus, we find it is clear that Dr. Scott's opinions incorporated both a comprehensive and a current understanding of the employee's relevant medical history. We find her opinions are fully supported by the other unbiased experts, and are preponderant evidence supporting findings that the employee's only current work-related condition is encephalopathy.
Based on our review of the record, we find Dr. Scott had a clearer and more complete picture of the employee's medical history than Dr. Heuser or even Dr. Steiner. (Emphases added.) Along these lines, the board also noted factual inaccuracies in Dr. Heuser's report and evidence that Dr. Steiner lacked a firm grasp on the case history and had "no formal training in environmental medicine and occupational illness."
Lindhag appealed the board's decision to the superior court, but then filed a motion for stay of appeal in order to first petition the board for modification. The superior court granted the stay, and a petition for rehearing and modification followed. Pursuant to AS 23.30.130(a) and 8 Alaska Administrative Code 45.150(d), Lindhag alleged mistake of fact and change in conditions to warrant a rehearing. Her petition was primarily based on newly discovered evidence regarding her lack of allergic reaction to dust mites. The board denied the motion on September 3, 2002, finding that Lindhag made no showing of due diligence and was impermissibly attempting to retry her claim.
Lindhag next filed a petition for reconsideration, which was denied. Lindhag then appealed to the superior court, which consolidated review of the order denying benefits with the order denying a rehearing. The superior court affirmed both orders. Lindhag appeals.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
"When the superior court acts as an intermediate court of appeals, we independently review the merits of the administrative determination." We review the determinations of fact by an administrative agency under the "substantial evidence" standard. "Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." "On review we will not reweigh conflicting evidence, determine witness credibility, or evaluate competing inferences from testimony because those functions are reserved to the Board." Thus, "even when conflicting evidence exists, we uphold the Board's decision if substantial evidence supports it."
Review of an agency's application of its own regulation to the facts is limited to whether the agency's decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, or an abuse of discretion.
IV. DISCUSSION
The Alaska Workers' Compensation Act creates a presumption that an employee's claims are compensable. Applying this presumption involves a three-step analysis:
First, the employee must establish a preliminary link between the injury and the employment. This step of the analysis requires consideration of "only evidence that tends to establish the link." . . . In the second step, we inquire whether the employer rebutted the evidence with "substantial evidence that either (1) provides an alternate explanation which, if accepted, would exclude work related factors as a substantial cause of
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Alaska Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|