12-0029. JACK A MCGUIRE Employee Petitioner v. CONAM CONSTRUCTION Employer and ZURICH AMERICAN INS CO Insurer Respondant(s).
Court | Alaska |
Alaska Workers Compensation Decisions
2012.
Workers' Compensation Board
12-0029.
JACK A MCGUIRE Employee Petitioner v. CONAM CONSTRUCTION Employer and ZURICH AMERICAN INS CO Insurer Respondant(s)
JACK A MCGUIRE, Employee, Petitioner v. CONAM CONSTRUCTION,
Employer, and ZURICH AMERICAN INS CO, Insurer, Respondant(s).AWCB Decision No.
12-0029Filed with AWCB Fairbanks, Alaskaon February 17th, 2012AWCB Case
No. 200607616INTERLOCUTORY DECISION AND ORDERJack A. McGuire's (Employee) petition for change of venue was
heard in Fairbanks, Alaska on October 13, 2011. Employee appeared and
represented himself. Attorney Jeffrey Holloway represented Conam Construction
and Zurich American Insurance Company (collectively Employer). There were no
witnesses. The record closed at the hearing's conclusion on October 13, 2011.
ISSUE
Employee contends his request to change venue to Anchorage,
Alaska should be granted since Anchorage is a more convenient venue for any
future hearings on his claim because he lives in Wasilla, his doctors are in
Wasilla or Anchorage, and Employer's main office is in Anchorage.
Employer on the other hand contends venue is proper in
Fairbanks because Employee was injured on the North Slope and the nearest
workers' compensation office is Fairbanks. Employer further contends witnesses
to Employee's injury are fellow Slope workers and Fairbanks would be the
convenient hearing venue for them. Furthermore, Employer maintains an office in
Fairbanks although its principal office is located in Anchorage.
Shall venue be changed from Fairbanks to Anchorage?
FINDINGS OF
FACT
A review of the record establishes the following facts and
factual conclusions by a preponderance of the evidence:
1) Employee was injured on May 24, 2006, while working for
Employer at Rowan Camp #41 at Prudhoe Bay (Report of Occupational Injury (ROI),
May 25, 2006).
2) Employee lives in Wasilla, Alaska, which is closer to
Anchorage than to Fairbanks (Employee; record; experience, observations,
judgment).
3) Employer's principal office is located in Anchorage, Alaska
(ROI; record).
4) Employee's doctors practice in either Anchorage or Wasilla
(Employee; record).
5) Employee's witnesses reside in Anchorage or Wasilla
(Employee).
6) Employee sustains an increase cost in transportation
expenses in order to attend hearings in Fairbanks in person and an increase in
telephone costs to participate in prehearings by telephone (experience,
observations, and judgment).
7) Employer's Medical Evaluation (EME) was...
To continue reading
Request your trial