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.”...