12-0026. JACOB G. KIEHN Employee v. WESTWARD SEAFOODS INC Employer and ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY Insurer Defendants.
Court | Alaska |
Alaska Workers Compensation Decisions
2012.
Workers' Compensation Board
12-0026.
JACOB G. KIEHN Employee v. WESTWARD SEAFOODS INC Employer and ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY Insurer Defendants
Alaska Workers'
Compensation Appeals Commission
JACOB G. KIEHN, Employee, Applicant v. WESTWARD SEAFOODS, INC, Employer, and
ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Insurer, Defendants.AWCB Decision No. 12-0026Filed with AWCB Anchorage, Alaska On
February 14, 2012AWCB Case No.
201102274FINAL DECISION AND ORDER Westward Seafoods, Inc. and Ace American Insurance Company's
(collectively Employer) July 20, 2011 petition to preclude Jacob Kiehn's
(Employee) non-attorney representative (NAR) Scott Kiehn from the unauthorized
practice of law, Employee's August 16, 2011 petition for an SIME, and
Employee's petition for review of the board designee's August 25, 2011
discovery orders were heard on November 30, 2011, in Anchorage, Alaska.
Attorney Jeffrey Holloway represented Employer and Scott Kiehn (NAR)
represented Employee. The record closed at the hearing's conclusion on November
30, 2011.
ISSUES
Employer asserts Employee's NAR is engaging in the unauthorized
practice of law by signing interrogatories propounded to Employee,
participating in prehearings with or without Employee present, and undertaking
discovery. Employer asserts the Alaska statute authorizing a NAR to present
evidence at a hearing must be strictly construed to mean a NAR may only present
evidence at hearing. Employer contends the NAR may not conduct discovery
through either participating in depositions or answering interrogatories; nor
can a NAR participate in prehearings, whether Employee is present or not.
Employer further asserts a NAR may not sign discovery responses as these must
be signed by Employee personally under oath.
Employee contends the Alaska Workers' Compensation Act (Act)
specifically provides for non-attorney representation at hearing and this
statute, thereby, implicitly authorizes the NAR to do whatever is necessary to
help Employee prepare for hearing. To preclude the NAR from participating in
prehearings or conduct discovery would render this statute meaningless.
Employee agrees in the future he will personally sign discovery responses under
oath.
1) Is a non-attorney representative prohibited from undertaking
activities, such as discovery, in preparation for representing Employee at
hearing?
2) Is Employee's NAR engaging in the unauthorized practice of
law?
Employee seeks an SIME, contending such an evaluation will help
the board assess the cause and need for medical treatment for Employee' hand
pain. Employer asserts an SIME is premature because there is a lack of medical
evidence documenting Employee's current condition and need for medical
treatment. Furthermore, Employer asserts Employee has worked for other
employers since the work injury and additional discovery is needed to determine
if Employer has a last injurious exposure defense. Therefore, an SIME should
not be ordered at this time.
3) Should an SIME be ordered at this time?
Employee appeals the discovery orders by the board designee as
detailed in the August 25, 2011, prehearing conference summary. He contends the
board designee abused his discretion. Employer asserts the board designee
properly ruled on numerous discovery petitions and his rulings should be
affirmed.
4) Should the board designee's discovery orders be
affirmed?
FINDINGS OF FACT
A review of the entire record establishes the following facts
and factual conclusions by a preponderance of the evidence:
1) Employee was injured on January 24, 2011, while working for
Employer, when Employee developed loss feeling and pain in his hands from
working for an extended period of time moving fish baskets to the packing line
(February 28, 2011Workers' Compensation Claim (WCC)).
2) Employee was 20 years of age at the time of injury.
(Id.).
3) On January 31, 2011, Employee saw John M. Koller, M.D.,
Kodiak Island Ambulatory Care Clinic, with complaints of pain in forearms and
hands. Employee was beginning to lose grip strength and experienced numbness in
his first, middle, and third finger. Dr. Koller's assessment was carpal tunnel
syndrome. Employee was given a splint to wear and taken off work for three
days. Dr. Koller recommend nerve conduction studies (NCS) if the problem
persisted (January 31, 2011, Koller chart note).
4) On February 3, 2011, Dr. Koller diagnosed tenosynovitis and
possible carpal tunnel syndrome from Employee's redundant activity and lifting
boxes with his wrists. Dr. Koller noted partial positive Tinel and Phalen signs
(tests for carpal tunnel syndrome) with definite tingling in the medial nerve
distribution on the right. Employee was fitted with a new cock-up straight
splint to wear at all times. Dr. Koller took Employee off work for seven days
(February 3, 2011, Koller chart note; February 3, 2011, Return to Work/School
Release).
5) On February 10, 2011, Employee saw Dr. Koller again for
bilateral wrist pain. Employee was wearing the wrist splint which was helping.
Dr. Koller reiterated his diagnosis and stated Employee's tenosynovitis and
back issues were related to his work for Employer (February 10, 2011, Koller
chart note).
6) On March 3, 2011, W. Scott Kiehn filed his appearance as a
NAR on behalf of Employee, his son (record; Ex.1, Employer's hearing brief,
filed October 5, 2011).
7) On March 3, 2011, Employee filed a WCC seeking temporary
partial disability from January 24, 2011, and ongoing, medical benefits,
transportation costs, penalty, and interest (WCC dated February 28, 2011, filed
March 3, 2011).
8) On May 3, 2011, Employee saw Morris Button, M.D., for an
EME. His assessment was Employee's upper extremities were normal upon
examination. Dr. Button noted Employee did not have an NCS as recommended by
Dr. Koller. Dr. Button opined Employee had no objective abnormal findings and
no indication of tendonitis or compression neuropathy. Employee had reached
medical stability by mid-March 2011, and was able to return to his work at time
of injury, seafood processor. Employee had no physical restrictions for any
work activities (May 3, 2011 Button EME report).
9) On July 20, 2011, Employer filed its Petition to strike all
pleadings and discovery requests authored/tendered by Employee's NAR on behalf
of Employee, asserting the NAR was engaging in the unauthorized practice of law
(record; Ex. 16, Employer's hearing brief, filed October 5, 2011).
10) On August 25, 2011, the board designee made the following
discovery orders:
ER's 5/13/2011 petition for a protective order had been held until today because the Board did not have a copy of the underlying discovery request at the last prehearing. A copy of EE's 4/29/2011 letter has since been filed. The petition states that ER provided partial responses, and the designee asked Mr. Holloway to clarify what had been produced and what the objections were. Mr. Holloway said that ER had produced the written statement that EE had signed and EE's employment file. He pointed out that to the extent the request asks for statements, records, files, videos, and contracts without some limitation or identification, the request was overbroad. He argued the request to identify persons that would testify is premature, as no hearing, or hearing deadlines have been set. And lastly, to the extent the letter implies any action by ER was discriminatory, ER denies any discrimination.
Mr. Kiehn explained that EE had written out a statement which was re-written by ER personnel and then signed by EE. He is seeking the original statement. Mr. Holloway stated that he had produced the only statement ER had.
While EE is entitled to request evidence relevant to the case, as written the requests are so broad that ER would essentially have to guess as to whether something should be included or not. The designee granted ER's 5/13/2011 petition.
The designee takes this opportunity to explain that Workers' Comp. is a no-fault system. The Board only has limited jurisdiction. It can determine whether work caused an employee's injuries and determine what benefits the employee may be entitled to. For the most part, whether the employer, other employees, or the employee were at fault makes no difference. Whether one party may have engaged in other bad acts, such discrimination, typically makes no difference. The sole exception is that if the Board determines fraud occurred in connection with workers' comp. benefits, it can refer the matter for prosecution in the courts.
EE's 7/5/2011 petition to review ER's defenses. The designee explained that this was a matter for hearing and he could not address it at a prehearing. ER's defenses are usually evaluated at the same time EE's case is presented. The designee made no ruling on EE's 7/5/2011 petition to review ER's defenses; EE may raise the issue at the hearing on the merits of EE's claim.
EE's 7/5/2011 petition to compel and ER's 7/20/2011 petition for protective order both concern EE's 6/21/2011 discovery requests and can be considered together. In discussing the individual requests, Mr. Kiehn explained that he had learned more about the discovery process, and he would withdraw the 6/21/2011 requests, revise them, and re-send them. As the discovery requests have been withdrawn, both EE's 7/5/2011 petition to compel and ER's 7/20/2011 petition for protective order are moot.
EE's 7/9/2011 petition requesting a prehearing. This prehearing was...
To continue reading
Request your trial