Woodell v. Alaska Regional Hospital, 040220 AKWC, 20-0018

Case DateApril 02, 2020
CourtAlaska
KADE WOODELL, Employee Claimant,
v.
ALASKA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, Employer,
And
INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Insurer, Defendants.
AWCB Decision No. 20-0018
AWCB No. 201901025
Alaska Workers Compensation Board
April 2, 2020
          INTERLOCUTORY DECISION AND ORDER           Jung M Yeo, Designated Chair.          Alaska Regional Hospital’s (Employer) February 11, 2020 petition for dismissal and Kade Woodell’s (Employee) February 11, 2020 petition appealing a discovery order were heard on the written record on March 4, 2020, a date selected on February 18, 2020. Employee’s February 11, 2020 hearing request gave rise to this hearing. Attorney Krista Schwarting represents Employer. Employee represents himself. The record closed at the hearing’s conclusion on March 4, 2020.          ISSUES          Employee admits he did not timely appeal a designee’s discovery order; he contends he asked his former lawyer to file a petition appealing the order but he did not. Employee has not specifically responded to Employer’s petition for dismissal. However, based on his discovery order appeal, this decision assumes Employee opposes claim dismissal.          Employer contends Employee’s claim should be dismissed in its entirety because he failed to comply with the designee’s January 29, 2020 discovery order or appeal it within ten days after service of the prehearing summary.          1) Should Employee’s claim be dismissed in its entirety?          Employee contends the designee abused her discretion under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) when she ordered him to produce (1) names of the C-Diff patients, (2) names of charge nurses or persons to whom Employee reported his C-Diff exposure, (3) names of persons with whom Employee discussed his C-Diff exposure, and (4) location, ward or wing of where his C-Diff exposure took place.          Employer contends the designee’s discovery order was correctly issued and Employee’s appeal should be denied.          2) Did the designee abuse her discretion when she granted Employer’s discovery request?          FINDINGS OF FACT          All findings of fact in Woodell I and II are incorporated herein. The following facts and factual conclusions are reiterated from Woodell I and II or established by a preponderance of the evidence:          1) On April 17, 2019, Employee testified he was exposed to C-Diff in a patient's room on the cardiac ward. (Telephonic Deposition of Kade Woodell, April 17, 2019, at 26-27).          2) On July 26, 2019, Woodell v. Alaska Regional Hospital, AWCB Decision No. 19-0077 (Woodell I), held Employee’s claim was not barred for failure to give timely notice, and granted attorney fees and costs. (Woodell I).          3) On August 12, 2019, Employer asked for a stay and review of Woodell I. (Petition for Review of Interlocutory Board Decision, August 12, 2019).          4) On October 15, 2019, the Alaska Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission (the Commission) granted review of Woodell I, stayed the attorney fee award, and remanded for further credibility findings, specifically regarding Allie Miller’s testimony. (Order on Motion for Stay and Order on Petition for Review, October 15, 2019).          5) On November 27, 2019, Woodell v. Alaska Regional Hospital, AWCB Decision No. 19-0122 (Woodell II), gave no weight to Miller’s testimony and reiterated Woodell I remained unchanged. (Woodell II).          6) On December 24, 2019, Employer asked Employee to provide “the name of [the] charge nurse, as well as the names and specific dates that [Employee] contacted any member of [Employer’s] staff and/or administration regarding the alleged exposure to C-DIFF and the identity of the patient(s) to whom he was exposed.” (Employer’s informal discovery request letter, December 24, 2019).          7) On January 2, 2020, Employee filed a petition seeking a protective order against medical releases requested by Employer. Employee also objected to disclosing “the identities of the employees involved at Alaska Regional Hospital in the exposure.” (Petition, January 2, 2020).          8) On January 13, 2020, Employer filed a petition to compel Employee to disclose “the names of the patients that he allege[d] were C-DIFF positive, leading to his reported injury” contending “there are exceptions under HIPAA related to workers’ compensation claims.” (Petition, January 13, 2020).          9) On January 21, 2020, the Commission denied Employer’s petition for review and affirmed Woodell I and II. (Order on Petition for Review, January 21, 2020).          10) On January 29, 2020, the designee denied Employee's January 2, 2020 petition seeking a protective order and granted Employer's January 13, 2020 petition to compel discovery. She ordered Employee to provide the following to Employer:
1. Names of C-Diff patients;
2. Names of charge nurses or persons to whom Employee reported his C-Diff exposure;
3. Names of persons with whom Employee discussed his C-Diff exposure; and
4. The approximate location, ward or wing of the premises where the exposure took place.
         11) The prehearing conference summary was issued and served on January 30, 2020. (Prehearing Conference Summary, January 30, 2020).          12) On February 11, 2020, Employer filed a petition for dismissal of Employee's claim in its entirety for his failure to comply with the January 29, 2020 discovery order. (Petition, February 11, 2020).          13) On February 11, 2020, Employee appealed the designee's January 29, 2020 discovery order. He admitted he did not file a petition appealing the order within ten days after the service of the prehearing summary but contended he timely asked his former lawyer to file one. Employee also stated he is no longer represented by an attorney. (Email, February 11, 2020).          PRINCIPLES OF LAW          AS 23.30.001. Intent of the legislature and construction of chapter. It is the intent of the legislature that (1) this chapter be interpreted so as to ensure the quick, efficient, fair, and predictable delivery of indemnity and medical benefits to injured workers at a reasonable cost to the employers who are subject to the provisions of this chapter. . .          The board may base its decision on not only direct testimony, medical findings, and other tangible evidence, but also on the board’s “experience, judgment, observations, unique or peculiar facts of the case, and inferences drawn from all of the above.”...

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