12-0082. DONALD G. YOUNG Employee Respondant v. WESTERN CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC Employer and LIBERTY NORTHWEST INSURANCE CO Insurer Petitioners.
Court | Alaska |
Alaska Workers Compensation Decisions
2012.
Workers' Compensation Board
12-0082.
DONALD G. YOUNG Employee Respondant v. WESTERN CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC Employer and LIBERTY NORTHWEST INSURANCE CO Insurer Petitioners
ALASKA WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARDP.O. Box
115512 Juneau, Alaska 99811-5512DONALD G. YOUNG, Employee, Respondant, v. WESTERN CONSTRUCTION
SERVICES INC, Employer, and LIBERTY NORTHWEST INSURANCE CO, Insurer,
Petitioners.AWCB
Decision No. 12-0082Filed with AWCB Fairbanks,
Alaska on May 3, 2012AWCB
Case No. 201010838INTERLOCUTORY DECISION AND
ORDERWestern Constructions Services' (Employer) December 20, 2011
petition to modify the Reemployment Benefits Administrator's (RBA) June 15,
2011 eligibility determination, finding Donald Young (Employee) eligible for
reemployment benefits, was heard in Fairbanks, Alaska on March 29, 2012. Chancy
Croft represented Employee; Rebecca Holdiman Miller represented Employer. Upon
commencement of the hearing, citing 8 AAC 45.150, Employee objected to the lack
of specificity of Employer's petition, and requested a ruling limiting the
scope of the hearing to matters set forth on the face of Employer's petition.
The board panel chairman sustained Employee's objection and the hearing was
continued to afford Employer an opportunity, should it so chose, to file an
amended petition to include the new evidence and to afford Employee an
opportunity to prepare his position with respect to the new evidence. This
decision is to memorialize that ruling. The record closed at the hearing's
conclusion on March 29, 2012.
ISSUE
Employer contends the RBA's determination was based on the
opinion of Employee's treating physician, who predicted Employee would have a
permanent partial impairment (PPI). Employer contends the RBA's determination
should be modified because, according to Employer's independent medical
evaluator (EIME), Employee is medically stable and no physician has assessed
any permanent impairment. Employer also contends the RBA's determination should
be modified because Employee's treating physician, James Chestnutt, M.D.,
approved numerous job descriptions within Employee's physical capacities after
Employee had been found eligible. In response to Employee's objection, Employer
contends it referred to Dr. Chestnutt's job description approvals in its
hearing brief, and provided them to Employee in a medical summary in January
2012. Alternatively, Employer requests an opportunity to orally amend its
petition to assert an alternative ground for modification of the RBA's
determination based on new evidence Employee is able to return to work he has
performed in the past ten years prior to his injury.
Employee did not file a hearing brief, so his position on
Employer's December 20, 2011 petition is immediately unknown. It is presumed
Employee contends the RBA determination should not be modified. Upon
commencement of the hearing, Employee requested a ruling limiting the scope of
the hearing to matters set forth on the face of Employer's December 20, 2012
petition. Employee contends the hearing was set on that petition, and the
petition does not mention Dr. Chestnutt's January 27, 2012 job description
approvals.
1) Should Employee's request for a ruling limiting the scope of
the hearing to matters set forth on the face of Employer's December 20, 2012
petition be granted?
2) Should the hearing be continued to allow Employer to file an
amended petition asserting a new basis for modification of the RBA
determination on eligibility?
FINDINGS OF FACT
A preponderance of the evidence in the record as a whole
supports the following facts and factual conclusions:
1) On June 10, 2010, Employee was climbing up the wall of a
foundation and fell over backwards while working for Employer, injuring his
left hip, knee and lower back. (Report of Injury, August 10, 2010).
2) At the time of his injury, Employee was working for Employer
as a project manager. Previously, Employee had also worked as a contractor and
architect. (Eligibility Evaluation Report, April 1, 2011).
3) Employer began paying temporary total disability (TTD).
(Compensation Reports, September 23, 2010; March 15, 2011; August 8,
2011).
4) In September 2010, Employee began treating with James
Ballard, M.D., who opined Employee could return his job at the time of injury.
(Ballard reports, September 22, 2010).
5) In January 2011, Employee began treating with James
Chestnutt, M.D. (Chestnutt report, January 24, 2011).
6) On February 2, 2011, the RBA assigned Employee a
rehabilitation specialist to conduct an eligibility evaluation. (RBA letter,
February 2, 2011).
7) On February 12, 2011, Joseph Lynch, M.D. performed an EIME.
Dr. Lynch found Employee medically...
To continue reading
Request your trial