 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rockney v. Boslough Construction Co.5/27/2005
No. 5899
Before: Bryner, Chief Justice, Matthews, Eastaugh, Fabe, and Carpeneti, Justices.
I. INTRODUCTION
This appeal arises from the Alaska Workers' Compensation Board's approval of a vocational reemployment plan for Knute Rockney, who suffered a back injury while working for Boslough Construction. Rockney challenges the plan that would retrain him as drafter through the Architectural Engineering Technology program at the University of Alaska Anchorage. Because we agree that substantial evidence does not support that the plan meets Rockney's remunerative wage and the statutory time limitation, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
Rockney began to experience back pain from his job as a laborer for Boslough Construction on December 26, 2000. He applied for and was paid a variety of workers' compensation benefits through Boslough's insurer, Alaska National Insurance Company. Rockney also was deemed eligible for reemployment benefits under AS 23.30.041 because he could no longer work in construction and asbestos removal since these classifications were too demanding for his back.
Rockney's first reemployment plan (Plan I) was abandoned after being submitted for approval to the reemployment benefits administrator (RBA). The second plan (Plan II) aimed to retrain Rockney as a drafter through the Architectural Engineering Technology program at the University of Alaska Anchorage. Among other findings, Rehabilitation Specialist Marjorie Linder adopted Plan I's remunerative wage of $21.58 per hour and determined that Plan II would meet Rockney's remunerative wage of $21.58 per hour, that the labor market for drafters is "very ample," and that Rockney had the skills and aptitude to complete Plan II. Plan II also provided that Alaska National would pay for a computer for Rockney, although the insurer imposed certain conditions.
RBA Douglas Saltzman approved Plan II on March 4, 2003. Rockney appealed and began attending classes at UAA under the plan while his appeal was pending. At his professors' suggestions, Rockney dropped his summer math course and switched writing classes so that he could take slower-paced classes. These changes meant Rockney was three credits behind in completing the plan by the end of the summer of 2003.
Both the Workers' Compensation Board and the superior court rejected Rockney's challenges. He now appeals to us, contending that the plan fails to meet his remunerative wage, that the labor market is inadequate, that he cannot complete the plan within the statutory time frame, and that he should not have to buy his own computer. Additionally, he argues that the presumption of compensability applies to evaluating whether the plan meets the statutory requirements.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
When the superior court acts as an intermediate court of appeal, we give independent consideration to the agency decision. We independently review whether substantial evidence supports the board's factual findings. Substantial evidence is "in light of the record as a whole, . . . such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Under this standard, we will "not reweigh the evidence or draw own inferences from the evidence."
Determining the applicability of the statutory presumption of compensability is a question of law that we review de novo.
IV. DISCUSSION
A. Substantial Evidence Does Not Support the Board's Findings that the Plan Meets Rockney's Remunerative Wage of $21.58 at the Entry Level
The goal of reemployment plans is to "ensu
Page 1 2 3 Alaska Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|