 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Nickels v. Napolilli8/17/2001
out of, and in the course of, her employment.
A week before the scheduled jury trial, counsel for Nickels submitted revised jury instructions that shifted the focus of the case from negligence to breach of contract. In light of this change in position, the trial judge held a status conference. At that on-record conference, Nickels's counsel expressly stated that Nickels was abandoning her claims for negligence and misrepresentation. In response, the Napolillis moved to dismiss the case or, alternatively, to refer the case to the Alaska Workers' Compensation Board. They argued that no valid claims remained since Nickels had abandoned her negligence and misrepresentation claims. Judge Steinkruger granted the Napolillis' motion, dismissing Nickels's claims before the superior court and granting ninety days for Nickels to file her claim before the Alaska Workers' Compensation Board. Nickels appeals this ruling. The Napolillis cross-appeal the trial court's ruling that Nickels was an employee and that her injuries were work related, and that the statute of limitations does not bar Nickels's claim.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
Many of the issues before us are matters of statutory interpretation. The interpretation of a statute is a question of law; therefore, we use our independent judgment. "Our duty is to adopt the rule of law that is most persuasive in light of precedent, reason, and policy."
Whether Nickels is appropriately considered an "employee" for the purposes of the workers' compensation statute is a mixed question of law and fact. We review the trial court's factual findings using the clearly erroneous standard, and we apply de novo review to the legal determination of whether these facts amount to employment under the statute.
B. The Trial Court Did Not Err in Dismissing Nickels's Breach of Contract and Bad Faith Claims.
1. Alaska Workers' Compensation Act provisions establish an employee's remedies for work-related injuries.
The Alaska Workers' Compensation Act creates a system through which employers compensate employees injured on the job , irrespective of fault for the injury. It is a "mutual arrangement of reciprocal rights between employer and employee, whereby both parties give up and gain certain advantages." In exchange for guaranteed recovery for post-injury wage loss, medical expenses, and vocational rehabilitation services covered by the statute, employees give up the opportunity to seek the full scope of tort or negligence damages.
The Alaska Workers' Compensation Act establishes that " he liability of an employer prescribed in AS 23.30.045 is exclusive and in place of all other liability of the employer." The exclusivity of workers' compensation act remedies was a "keystone" of the development of workers' compensation systems such as Alaska's. Employers and employees both give up certain rights for the greater good of widespread, no-fault insurance coverage for on-the-job injuries.
Alaska Statute 23.30.045(a) provides that an employer "is liable for and shall secure the payment to employees of the compensation payable under [the Act]." When an employer fails to comply with the Alaska Workers' Compensation Act's requirement to secure payment of compensation to its injured employees, either through procurement of a workers' compensation insurance policy or through self-insurance, the statute offers an injured employee two options for seeking recovery. The Act offers employees whose employers have not provided workers' compensation benefits the choice of (1) claiming compensation through the procedures of the workers' compensation statute, or
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Alaska Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|