12-0006. KENNETH L. MONZULLA Employee v. VOORHEES CONCRETE CUTTING Employer And ALASKA NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY Insurer Defendants.

Court:Alaska
 
FREE EXCERPT
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

FREE SIGN UP