Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

The State provided prisoner Dewell Pearce extensive medical care during his incarceration. Around the time of his release from custody, Mr. Pearce won a medical malpractice judgment against the State. The State paid part of the judgment, but relying on a reimbursement statute, withheld the medical care costs associated with conditions unrelated to the malpractice claim. The State then sought a declaratory judgment that it was entitled to reimbursement from Mr. Pearce for treatment of the unrelated conditions. The superior court ruled that the statute in question did not authorize the State to seek reimbursement from former prisoners no longer in custody. The State appealed. Upon review of the superior court record and the applicable statute, the Supreme Court found that the superior court misinterpreted the law. The Court reversed the superior court's ruling and vacated the judgment. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings.

In 1999, Appellant-Employee Kenneth Monzulla hurt his back at work. In 2001, he and his employer entered a partial compromise and release agreement to settle all issues stemming from the injury except for future medical care for his lumbar and thoracic spine. More recent disputes involved the extent of Appellant's medical care. A recurring issue between the parties pertained to venue for the proceedings. In 2008, Appellee Voorhees Concrete Cutting asked the Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission to review and stay a non-final order that denied its change of venue from Fairbanks. The Commission first issued a partial stay, which permitted the case to go forward in any venue other than Fairbanks. It later reviewed the merits of the Workers' Compensation Board's decision to deny the change of venue and reversed it. On appeal, Mr. Monzulla contended that the Commission did not have subject matter jurisdiction over "motions for extraordinary review." He claimed that legislature only granted the Commission jurisdiction to hear appeals of final Board orders. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that jurisdiction to hear appeals is "necessarily incident to the Commission's express power" to hear appeals from final Board decisions. The Court affirmed the Commission's decision.

Appellant Habib Azimi was involved in a car accident and subsequently brought a pro se personal injury suit against the other driver, Appellee David Johns. Mr. Azimi twice asked for continuances for medical reasons, but the court denied both. Eventually final judgment was entered in favor of Mr. Johns, dismissing Mr. Azimi's case. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Mr. Azimi argued that his case should not have been dismissed. He argued that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his requests for continuances, and that the court did not provide "adequate guidance" under Alaska's lenient standards for pro se litigants. Upon careful consideration of the arguments and the trial record, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision. The Court found that Mr. Azimi had not completed presentation of his case-in-chief. The Court found that the case could not be dismissed before the trial court weighed all of the evidence. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings.