2012-158. Brenda Pruitt Appellant vs. Providence Extended Care and Sedgwick CMS Inc. Appellees.

Case DateJanuary 27, 2012
CourtAlaska
Alaska Workers Compensation Decisions 2012. Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission 2012-158. Brenda Pruitt Appellant vs. Providence Extended Care and Sedgwick CMS Inc. Appellees Alaska Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission Brenda Pruitt, Appellant, vs. Providence Extended Care and Sedgwick CMS, Inc., Appellees.Decision No. 158 January 27, 2012AWCAC Appeal No. 10-032 AWCB Decision No. 10-0156 AWCB Case No. 200403225Decision Upon Reconsideration Decision upon reconsideration on appeal from Alaska Workers' Compensation Board Decision No. 10-0156, issued at Anchorage on September 15, 2010, by southcentral panel members Laura Hutto de Mander, Chair, Patricia Vollendorf, Member for Labor, Don Gray, Member for Industry. Appearances: Brenda Pruitt, self-represented appellant. Colby J. Smith, Griffin and Smith, for appellees, Providence Extended Care and Sedgwick CMS, Inc. Commission proceedings: Appeal filed November 22, 2010; briefing completed May 19, 2011; oral argument held September 14, 2011; Final Decision issued November 23, 2011; State's Motion for Reconsideration filed December 7, 2011; Amended Final Decision issued December 15, 2011; Request for Reconsideration filed January 12, 2012.Commissioners: David Richards, S. T. Hagedorn, Laurence Keyes, Chair.By: Laurence Keyes, Chair. 1. Introduction. Appellant, Brenda Pruitt (Pruitt), appealed a decision of the Alaska Workers' Compensation Board (board)(fn1) in which the board concluded that a provision in AS 23.30.110(c)(fn2) bars Pruitt's claim against appellees, Providence Extended Care and Sedgwick CMS, Inc. (collectively Providence). The board dismissed Pruitt's claim on the grounds that she needed to request a hearing by filing an Affidavit of Readiness for Hearing (ARH) within two years of Providence's controversion of her claim. We, the Alaska Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission (commission), in an Amended Final Decision,(fn3) remanded the matter to the board so that it might clarify its decision to indicate whether or not Pruitt's noncompliance with AS 23.30.110(c) was attributable to an inability on her part to understand the statute's requirements.(fn4) Providence timely filed a Request for Reconsideration (Request) with the commission in which it argued that the commission overlooked a material fact as found by the board.(fn5) Providence maintained that the board had made adequate findings that related to the issue whether Pruitt understood the requirements of AS 23.30.110(c). It urged the commission to reconsider our remand to the board. On reconsideration, the commission agrees with Providence. The board made adequate findings in this respect and decided the issue, eliminating any need for a remand. Therefore, the commission rescinds its remand to the board of the issue whether Pruitt's noncompliance with AS 23.30.110(c) resulted from a lack of understanding with respect to the actions the statute required her to take. This decision upon reconsideration is intended to supersede the commission's amended final decision in Pruitt I. 2. Factual background and proceedings. Based on a Report of Injury, Pruitt injured her back in 1995 while working for the Fairbanks Correctional Center.(fn6) According to her 2010 deposition testimony, Pruitt reported an injury for severe trauma and stress when working at Alaska Executive Search in 2000.(fn7) On April 4, 2003, Pruitt completed and signed an Occupational Health History questionnaire for Providence. On the form, in response to the question whether she had ever had an on-the-job injury, Pruitt answered "no."(fn8) At her 2005 deposition, Pruitt testified that she misunderstood this question.(fn9) On March 29, 2004, Pruitt reported that she injured her back on March 10, 2004, while pushing a medication cart.(fn10) Providence initially paid benefits.(fn11) Following an employer's medical evaluation (EME), Providence first controverted benefits on September 3, 2004.(fn12) Through her attorney, Michael Patterson (Patterson), Pruitt filed a workers' compensation claim (WCC) on February 8, 2005, seeking temporary total disability (TTD), permanent total disability, permanent partial impairment (PPI), medical costs, attorney fees and costs, and a second independent medical evaluation.(fn13) On February 10, 2005, Providence filed a controversion on the board's form 07-6105, in which it disputed TTD, PPI, rehabilitation benefits, and medical costs after January 11, 2005, on the basis of the EME.(fn14) The board's form contains the following warnings on the reverse side:
TO EMPLOYEE (OR OTHER CLAIMANTS IN CASE OF DEATH): READ CAREFULLY
This notice means the insurer/employer has denied payment of the benefits listed on the front of this form for the reasons given. If you disagree with the denial, you must file a timely written claim (see time limits below). The Alaska Workers' Compensation (AWC) Board provides the "Application for Adjustment of Claim" form for this purpose. You must also request a timely hearing before the AWC Board (see time limits below). The AWC Board provides the "Affidavit of Readiness for Hearing" form for this purpose. Get forms from the nearest AWC Board Office listed below.
TIME LIMITS
. . . .
2. When must you request a hearing?
Within two years after the date the insurer/employer filed this controversion notice, you must request a hearing before the AWC Board. You will lose your right to the benefits denied on the front of this form
...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT