12-0070. JAMES G. MCKENNA Employee Claimant v. ARCO ALASKA INC. Employer and ACE USA formerly Alaska Pacific Assurance Co. Insurer Defendants.
Court | Alaska |
Alaska Workers Compensation Decisions
2012.
Workers' Compensation Board
12-0070.
JAMES G. MCKENNA Employee Claimant v. ARCO ALASKA INC. Employer and ACE USA formerly Alaska Pacific Assurance Co. Insurer Defendants
Alaska Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission P.O. Box 115512 Juneau, Alaska 99811-5512 JAMES G. MCKENNA, Employee, Claimant, v. ARCO ALASKA, INC.,
Employer, and ACE USA, formerly Alaska Pacific Assurance Co., Insurer,
Defendants.AWCB
Decision No. 12-0070Filed with AWCB
Anchorage, Alaska on April 9, 2012AWCB Case No. 199028636AWCB Case No.
198802683FINAL AND INTERLOCUTORY DECISION AND
ORDERSArco Alaska, Inc. and ACE USA's (collectively, Employer, ARCO,
insurer, or adjuster) July 14, 2011 petition to dismiss Mr. McKenna's (Employee
or Mr. McKenna) non-medical claims; and Employee's October 6, 2011 petition to
strike pharmacy logs and prescription receipts from binders prepared for the
second independent medical evaluation (SIME), and his October 21, 2011 petition
contesting questions proposed by Employer for the SIME physician, were heard on
February 29, 2012, in Anchorage, Alaska. Attorney Michael Jensen represented
Employee. Employee was present, but did not testify, having testified
previously through deposition. Attorney Michelle Meshke represented Employer.
James Roberts testified telephonically on behalf of Employer. There were no
other witnesses. The record was left open to receive copies of Controversion
Notices purportedly filed on April 19, 1999 and July 31, 2003, Employee's
Supplemental Affidavit of Attorney Fees, Employer's Objection, if any, and
Employee's response.
On March 12, 2012, Employee filed a Petition to Strike an
additional pharmacy log, Bates stamped pages 846-884, filed by Employer in a
Supplemental SIME binder on March 8, 2012. At a March 21, 2012 prehearing
conference, the parties agreed their arguments concerning Employee's petition
to strike the newly filed pharmacy log were the same as those expressed at the
February 29, 2012 hearing addressing previously filed pharmacy records. The
parties agreed the board should consider Employee's March 12, 2012 petition to
strike the additional pharmacy records with the issues under advisement, with
no further briefing or hearing. The record closed on March 21, 2012.
The decision and orders hereunder concerning Employer's
petition to dismiss Employee's non-medical claims are final orders. The
decision and orders pertaining to the SIME binders and questions are
interlocutory orders.
ISSUES
Employer contends Employee knew of his disability, his
disablement, and its relation to his employment for ARCO, no later than March
25, 2008. Employer contends Employee thus had two years, or until March 25,
2010, to file any workers' compensation claim (WCC or claim) for nonmedical
benefits. Because Employee did not file a claim until August 23, 2010, Employer
contends, Employee's non-medical claims should be dismissed under AS
23.30.105(a). Employer further contends its adjuster purged its records from
the 1988 injury, and it would be prejudiced were Employee's claims not
dismissed.
Employee contends his February 16, 1988 work injury is governed
by §105(a) in effect prior to amendments effective July 1, 1988. He
contends that for injuries occurring prior to July 1, 1988, where, as here,
payment of compensation is made by the employer without an award, a claim may
be filed within two years from the last date compensation was paid. He contends
Employer paid for thoracic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) on or about March
18, 2009, thus allowing him until on or about March 18, 2011 within which to
timely file a claim for his 1988 injury. Since he filed a claim for both
injuries on August 23, 2010, Employee contends, the claim or claims were timely
under AS 23.30.105(a).
Employee further contends he did not know the full effects of
his disability, his disablement, and its relation to his employment for ARCO as
early as Employer contends, his claims were timely filed and should not be
dismissed.
1) Should Employee's claim for disability benefits for
his February 16, 1988 work injury be dismissed under AS 23.30.105(a)
?
2) Should Employee's claim for disability benefits for
his October 28, 1990 work injury be dismissed under AS 23.30.105(a)
?
Employee contends Employer's SIME binders were prepared and
submitted in violation of 8 AAC 45.092(h). Specifically, Employee contends the
binders contain pharmacy and other non-medical records, and records placed out
of chronological order, which may improperly influence the SIME physician's
assessment of his claim. Employee contends Bates stamped pages numbered 8-140,
495, 832-834, 839-845 and 846-884 should be stricken from the SIME
binders.
Employer concedes it placed pharmacy logs and receipts for
prescription medicines out of chronological order, at pages 008-140, because
its defense counsel stores them in its case file in this manner. Employer
contends the Board should create an exception to the rule requiring medical
records be organized in chronological order in SIME binders for pharmacy
records. It contends requiring chronological placement of pharmacy log entries
would be a waste of time, resources, paper and mailing costs. Employer contends
the pharmacy logs and receipts, at 008-140, 832-834, 839-845 and 846-884 of the
SIME binders, should not be stricken because they provide "a handy summary for
the SIME physician" to obtain an overview of Employee's prescription drug
use.
Employer further contends Bates stamped page 495, a letter to
Employee from the human resources (HR) director for Peak Oilfield Services,
should remain in the SIME binder because it provides context for page 498, a
letter to the HR director from treating physician Michael James, MD.
3) Should the June 29, 2006 letter from James Roberts,
HR director for Peak Oilfield Services, Bates stamped page 495, be stricken
from the SIME binders?
4) Should pharmacy logs and prescription receipts,
Bates stamped pages 008-140, 832-834, 839-845 and 846-884, be stricken from the
SIME binders?
Employee contends Employer's proposed questions for the SIME
physician, numbered 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D and 3E are not questions, and should be
excluded from the board's letter to the SIME physician. Additionally, Employee
contends the attachments to Employer's paragraph 3D are not medical records,
and for that reason should not be included with the questions sent with the
SIME binders. Finally, Employee contends Employer's question 4, footnote 1,
includes an objectionable legal standard of causation, and should not be
submitted. Employee contends Employer will be permitted to ask the SIME
physician any questions it chooses, by interrogatory or deposition, after the
SIME report has been received.
Employer contends there is no legal basis upon which to exclude
from the board's SIME letter Employer's proposed question number 3, including
all of its subparts and attachments. Employer contends its proposed question 4,
footnote 1, recites the correct legal standard and should be included.
5) Should Employer's proposed questions for the SIME
physician, numbered 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D and its attachments, question 3E, and
footnote 1 to question 4, be excluded from the board's letter to the SIME
physician?
Should he prevail Employee seeks an award of attorney fees
under AS 23.30.145(b) for 19.4 hours of attorney time at $385.00 per hour, 12.4
hours of paralegal time at $165.00 per hour, and costs of $19.35, for a total
award of $11,613.95. Employer objects to the affidavit of fees on numerous
grounds. Employer contends the paralegal rate is excessive, seeks fees for work
too vague to determine whether it is awardable or is clerical in nature, and
contains entries previously billed or duplicative of attorney time billed.
Employer contends entries for attorney time are for issues unrelated to the
subject of this hearing, are for work previously billed and awarded, are
duplicative of paralegal entries, or are too vague. Employer finally argues
since this was an interlocutory hearing and did not address the merits of
Employee's claim, benefits cannot be awarded under AS 23.30.145(a). In response
to Employer's objections, Employee concedes some entries were in error, and its
request for an award of fees and costs should be revised to $10,469.35.
6) Is Employee entitled to an award of attorney fees
and costs? If so, in what amount?
FINDINGS OF FACT
On November 21, 2011, James G. McKenna v. ARCO Alaska,
Inc., AWCB Decision No. 110164 (November 21, 2011) (McKenna
I), addressing competing petitions for releases and protective orders,
issued. This decision incorporates by reference those findings of fact in
McKenna I which pertain to the issues raised in these
proceedings, and excerpts those which provide context for the issues raised in
this hearing. Review of the record as a whole establishes the following
relevant facts and factual conclusions by a preponderance of the
evidence:
1) On February 16, 1988, while tightening a flange on a valve
at Employer's Swanson River facilities, Employee slipped on cellar boards, fell
backwards onto a valve, and injured his back. Both Employee and Employer
reported the body part affected as Employee's "back."(Report of Occupational
Injury (ROI), February 16, 1988; see also ARCO Injury
Investigation Report, February 16, 1988).
2) On February 17, 1988, Employee was evaluated for the work
injury in the emergency room (ER) at Central Peninsula General Hospital, in...
To continue reading
Request your trial