Goemer v. University of Alaska, 012121 AKWC, 21-0006

Case DateJanuary 21, 2021
CourtAlaska
ANNA L. GOEMER, Employee, Claimant,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA, Self-Insured Employer, Defendant.
AWCB Decision No. 21-0006
AWCB No. 200619131
Alaska Workers Compensation Board
January 21, 2021
         INTERLOCUTORY DECISION AND ORDER           Judith A DeMarsh, Designated Chair.          Anna Goemer’s (Employee) December 22, 2020 petition for reconsideration of the Board designee’s (designee) December 15, 2020 discovery order denying Employee’s November 12, 2020 and December 8, 2020 petitions for protective orders was heard on the written record in Anchorage, Alaska, on January 13, 2021, a date selected on December 23, 2020. The record closed at the hearing’s conclusion on January 13, 2021.          ISSUES          Employee contends her petitions for protective orders should be granted as the releases are overbroad, unnecessary, and out of scope for the workers’ compensation benefits she is claiming. She also contends she has already signed some of the requested releases. In her December 22, 2020 petition she is requesting reconsideration or modification of the designee’s denial of her November 23, 2020 and December 8, 2020 protective orders.          Employer contends the releases signed and returned by Employee have been rendered unusable as Employee adds written notes and crosses out items.          Should the panel make a determination on Employee’s December 22, 2020 petition for reconsideration of the designee’s denial of her petitions for protective orders?          FINDINGS OF FACT          A preponderance of the evidence establishes the following facts and factual conclusions:          1) On November 28, 2006, Employee reported September 27, 2006 neck, center chest, head and right shoulder injuries incurred from a collision with a classmate while practicing softball for a University of Louisville SPI sponsored event. Employee was working as a Lt. Police Officer for the University of Alaska. (Report of Injury, 12/6/2006.)          2) On March 8, 2019, Employee filed a claim for medical benefits and transportation costs. (Workers’ Compensation Claim, 3/8/2019.)          3) On October 12, 2020, Employee filed a claim for temporary total disability benefits, permanent total disability benefits, past, future and continuing medical benefits, a compensation rate adjustment, a finding of unfair controversion, penalty, interest, and attorney fees. (Workers’ Compensation Claim, 10/12/2020.)          4) On November 23, 2020, Employee filed a petition for a protective order contending, inter alia, she should not have to notarize the releases sent to her by Employer, objecting to the deadlines set by Employer for return of the signed releases, and the scope of the releases. (Protective order, 11/23/20.)          5) On December 8, 2020, Employee filed a second petition for a protective order claiming Employer’s attorney “harassed her with C mail (sic) for information.” She further stated she would not notarize medical releases. (Petition, 12/8/20.)          6) On December 15, 2020, Employee and Employer’s counsel attended a prehearing to present their respective positions on Employee’s two petitions for protective orders. The designee denied both petitions stating he reviewed the five releases at issue and found these releases to be “standard, relevant, and likely to lead to discoverable information.” The five releases at issue were for medical records, employment records and records held by the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, the Alaska Division of Workers’ Compensation, and the Social Security Administration. (Prehearing conference (PHC) summary, 12/15/20.)          7) The December 15, 2020 PHC summary does not indicate whether the designee made clear to the parties the board would be following AS 23.30.108(c) or whether he reviewed the statute with the parties. The PHC summary does not (Id.)          8) On December 22, 2020, Employee timely filed a petition for a protective order, to compel discovery, to continue or cancel a hearing, reconsideration or modification, as well as an extension of time to request a hearing under AS 23.30.110(c) among other things. Employee attached “Interrogatories and Requests for Production” to her petition. She also provided an extensive list of reasons she wanted the designee’s discovery determination reconsidered. (Petition, 12/22/20; Interrogatories and Requests for Production with attachments, 12/20/2020.)          9) Employee’s petition...

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