2007-027. Stephen Olafson Movant vs. State of Alaska Dep't of Trans. and Pub. Facilities Respondent.
Case Date | January 11, 2007 |
Court | Alaska |
Alaska Workers Compensation Decisions
2007.
Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission
2007-027.
Stephen Olafson Movant vs. State of Alaska Dep't of Trans. and Pub. Facilities Respondent
Alaska Workers' Compensation Appeals
Commission Stephen Olafson,
Movant, vs. State of Alaska, Dep't of Trans. and Pub. Facilities,
Respondent.Decision No.
027 January 11,
2007AWCAC Appeal No. 06-033 AWCB Decision No. 06-0301 AWCB
Case No. 199017083Memorandum Decision and Order
Motion for Extraordinary Review from Alaska Workers'
Compensation Board Decision No. 06-0301, issued November 9, 2006 by the
south-central panel at Anchorage, Krista M. Shwarting, Chairman, Patricia A.
Vollendorf, Member for Labor, and S. T. Hagedorn, Member for Management.
Appearances: Michael J. Jensen, Law Offices of Michael J.
Jensen, for movant Stephen Olafson; Talis J. Colberg, Attorney General, and Joe
Cooper, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent State of Alaska, Department
of Transportation and Public Facilities.
This decision has been edited to conform to technical
standards for publication.Commissioners: John Giuchici, Chris N.
Johansen, and Kristin Knudsen.By: John Giuchici, Appeals Commissioner.
Stephan Olafson moved the commission to grant extraordinary
review of the board's interlocutory decision to affirm the pre-hearing
officer's refusal to appoint a new SIME despite the parties' stipulation and to
decline to strike the Second Independent Medical Evaluation (SIME) report.
Because we believe that review at this time will provide guidance to the board
on an issue that will otherwise evade review, we grant extraordinary
review.
Factual background and board
proceedings.
The parties to this claim agreed to an SIME on January 26,
2006. The pre-hearing officer selected Dr. Charles Brooks to perform the SIME
and scheduled the evaluation for March 27, 2006. The employee, Mr. Olafson,
provided questions for the SIME in February, expressing particular concern
regarding any potential conflict of interest. The pre-hearing officer's
appointment letter to Dr. Brooks asked him to disclose any previous medical
evaluations performed on behalf of the employer, the State of Alaska, over the
previous year; any other potential conflict of interest; and asked him not to
begin reviewing the medical records before he revealed any potential
conflict.
To avoid any such conflicts, on March 16, 2006, the parties
stipulated that another physician, Dr. Paul Puziss, should perform the SIME.
However, when the pre-hearing officer called Dr. Brooks to cancel the
evaluation on March 20, 2006, he informed her that he had already spent "an
extensive amount of time reviewing the medical records." Dr. Brooks also
acknowledged that he had performed some evaluations for the employer, but not
so large a number as to constitute a conflict of interest for him to perform
the SIME. As a...
To continue reading
Request your trial