2012-158. Brenda Pruitt Appellant vs. Providence Extended Care and Sedgwick CMS Inc. Appellees.
Case Date | January 27, 2012 |
Court | Alaska |
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