12-0006. KENNETH L. MONZULLA Employee v. VOORHEES CONCRETE CUTTING Employer And ALASKA NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY Insurer Defendants.
Court | Alaska |
Alaska Workers Compensation Decisions
2012.
Workers' Compensation Board
12-0006.
KENNETH L. MONZULLA Employee v. VOORHEES CONCRETE CUTTING Employer And ALASKA NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY Insurer Defendants
Alaska
Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission KENNETH L. MONZULLA, Employee, Applicant v. VOORHEES CONCRETE
CUTTING, Employer, And ALASKA NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Insurer,
Defendants.AWCB
Decision No. 12-0006 Filed with AWCB
Anchorage, Alaska on January 10, 2012 AWCB Case No(s). 199922832FINAL
DECISION AND ORDER AND SUPPLEMENTARY ORDER DECLARING DEFAULT Voorhees Concrete Cutting's (Employer) petition for a
supplementary order of default against Kenneth L. Monzulla (Employee) for
failure to pay Employer in accordance with decisions in Monzulla v.
Voorhees Concrete Cutting, AWCB Decision and Order No. 10-0183
(November 9, 2010) (Monzulla XI), Monzulla v. Voorhees
Concrete Cutting, AWCB Decision and Order No. 11-0090 (June 22, 2011)
(Monzulla XII), and Monzulla v. Voorhees Concrete
Cutting, AWCB Decision and Order No. 11-0161 (November 10, 2011)
(Monzulla XIII) was heard on the written record in Anchorage,
Alaska, on December 21, 2011. Attorney Richard Wagg represented Employer.
Employee did not appear or file any opposition to Employer's petition. The
record closed at the conclusion of the hearing on December 21, 2011.
ISSUES
Employer contends Employee is in default of his obligation to
repay Employer for benefits received from knowingly making false and/or
misleading statements and representations in order to receive medical benefits
and payment of attorney's fees associated with Employer's prosecution under AS
23.30.250(a). Employee did not file an opposition to the petition for an order
of default but it is presumed Employee would contend the board's orders in
Monzulla XI, XII, and XIII were erroneously decided and
Monzulla XI will be set aside on appeal. Therefore, Employee
would contend a default order should not be granted.
1) Should Employee be found in default of board orders in
Monzulla XI, XII, and XIII?
2) Should a supplementary order declaring default be issued
against Employee? If so, in what amount?
FINDINGS OF
FACT
A review of the record establishes the following facts and
factual conclusions by a preponderance of the evidence:
1) On November 9, 2010, Monzulla XI was
issued. The findings of fact in Monzulla XI are incorporated
herein by reference (record).
2) The order in Monzulla XI granted Employer's
petition for a finding of a violation of AS 23.30.250(b) and ordered Employee
to reimburse Employer for the cost of medical benefits totaling $42,754.70
(record).
3) On June 22, 2011, Monzulla XII was issued
and reaffirmed on reconsideration the order in Monzulla XI
(record).
4) On November 10, 2011, Monzulla XIII was
issued and awarded Employer $135,926.00 in attorney's fees and $9,649.83 in...
To continue reading
Request your trial