Alaska Supreme Court Opinions made Available byTouch N' Go Systems and Bright Solutions


Touch N' Go
®, the DeskTop In-and-Out Board makes your office run smoother.

 

You can search the entire site. or go to the recent opinions, or the chronological or subject indices. State of Alaska, Department of Corrections v. John R. Wozniak (7/23/2021) sp-7543

State of Alaska, Department of Corrections v. John R. Wozniak (7/23/2021) sp-7543

          Notice:   This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the P                    ACIFIC  REPORTER.  

          Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts,  

                                                                                                                  

          303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, email  

                                                                                                                    

          corrections@akcourts.gov.  



                     THE  SUPREME  COURT  OF  THE  STATE  OF  ALASKA  



STATE  OF  ALASKA,                                            )
  

DEPARTMENT  OF  CORRECTIONS, )                                     Supreme  Court  No.  S-17775
  

                                                              )  

                                                                                              

                              Appellant,                      )   Alaska Workers' Compensation  

                                                                                                            

                                                              )   Appeals Commission No.  19-008  

          v.                                                  )  

                                                                                      

                                                              )   O P I N I O N  

                

JOHN R. WOZNIAK,                                              )  

                                                                                                   

                                                              )   No. 7543 - July 23, 2021  

                              Appellee.                       )  

                                                              )  



                                                                                                    

                    Appeal from the Alaska Workers' Compensation Appeals  

                    Commission.  



                                                                                                  

                    Appearances:             Kimberly  D.  Rodgers,  Assistant  Attorney  

                                                                                                      

                    General,  Anchorage,  and  Clyde  "Ed"  Sniffen,  Jr.,  Acting  

                                                                                                           

                    Attorney   General,   Juneau,   for   Appellant.                           Joseph   A.  

                                                                                                           

                    Kalamarides,   Kalamarides   &  Lambert,   Anchorage,   for  

                    Appellee.  



                                                                                                          

                    Before:         Bolger,  Chief  Justice,  Winfree,  Maassen,  and  

                                                                                       

                    Carney, Justices.  [Borghesan, Justice, not participating.]  



                                       

                    CARNEY, Justice.  



I.        INTRODUCTION  



                                                                                                                               

                    After initially disputing that a corrections officer was permanently and  



                                                                                                                                      

totally disabled from injuries suffered at work, the State conceded his disability status.  



                                                                                                                      

The parties did not enter into a written settlement or stipulation because they disagreed  


----------------------- Page 2-----------------------

about the amount of attorney's fees the State should pay the officer's attorney.                                                                                                                                                                                        After a   



hearing   the   Alaska   Workers'   Compensation   Board   awarded   attorney's  fees   under  



AS 23.30.145(a) in two parts:  it awarded a specific amount of fees for work up to the                                                                                                                                                                                                  



time of the hearing and statutory minimum fees of 10% of ongoing benefits as long as                                                              



the officer received permanent total disability benefits. The State appealed to the Alaska                                                                                                                                                                                 



Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission, which affirmed the Board's decision                                                                                                                                                                                        



because in the Commission's view the award was not manifestly unreasonable.                                                                                                                                                                                                      The  



 State then appealed the Commission's decision to us.                                                                                                                                      We affirm the Commission's                           



decision.  



II.                    FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS                            



                                             John Wozniak injured his right knee while working as a corrections officer                                                                                                                                                     



and had right knee replacement surgery in 2014. He began vocational retraining but was                                                                                                                                                                                               



unable to participate fully because of continuing health concerns. At times Wozniak was                                                                                                                                                                                              



represented   by   attorney   Burt  Mason,   although   Wozniak   filed   at   least   one   written  



workers' compensation claim on his own.                                                                                     

                                                                                                                                                                  1  which caused continuing pain in his  

                                             Wozniak developed a neuropathy,                                                                                                                                                                                                           



lower leg, as a complication of the knee replacement surgery.  His treating physician  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 



suggested an out-of-state doctor who might be able to evaluate and, if possible, treat the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        



condition after she was unable to offer further care to improve his condition.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                               



                                             After someinvestigation Mason wrote to theState, proposing anagreement  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                



that Wozniak was permanently and totally disabled.  The State refused the offer, so in  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             



                       1                     "Neuropathy"isdefined                                                            as "damage,disease,ordysfunction ofoneor more                                                                                                      



nerves especially of the peripheral nervous system that is typically marked by burning                                                                                                                                                                       

or shooting pain, numbness, tingling, or muscle weakness or atrophy."                                                                                                                                                                                Neuropathy,  

M            E        R        R         I      A         M          -       W           E         B        S        T        E        R         .      C          O         M                     D           I      C        T        I      O         N         A         R        Y          ,  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/neuropathy (last visited May 27, 2021).  



                                                                                                                                             -2-                                                                                                                                  7543
  


----------------------- Page 3-----------------------

April   2018   Mason  filed  a   workers'   compensation   claim   on   Wozniak's   behalf   for  



permanent total disability (PTD) benefits and attorney's fees.                                                                                                                                                                                        The State answered and                                                             



denied Wozniak was permanently disabled.                                                                                                                                           Ultimately, after a State-selected doctor                                                                                                 



agreed in large part with Wozniak's treating physician and after the State's attempt to                                                                                                                                                                                                                       



find another doctor who would evaluate Wozniak's condition failed, the State agreed                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         



Wozniak was entitled to PTD benefits. The parties did not enter into a written settlement                                                                                                                                                                                                                       



about   PTD   benefits.     The   State   filed   a   compensation   report   reflecting   that  it   had  



"initiated" PTD benefits effective February 12, 2019.                                                                                                                                        



                                                     The parties were unable to agree on                                                                                                                      an   amount of                                              attorney's fees for                                             



Mason's work. The                                                              State mailed Mason acheck                                                                                    for $25,000, representing what the State  



considered a reasonable fee.                                                                                       Mason did not cash the check because the Board had not                                                                                                                                                                 

awarded him attorney's fees or costs.                                                                                                               2  



                                                     Wozniak's claimdid not specify which section of AS 23.30.145, the statute  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              



governing Board-ordered attorney's fees, should apply to his claim.  Mason filed an  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             



affidavit  of  his  hours;  an  affidavit  can  be  used  when  seeking  fees  under  either  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

AS 23.30.145(a) or (b).3  Wozniak's hearing brief argued that the State had controverted  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      



                           2                         Under AS 23.30.260(a)(1) it is a misdemeanor for an attorney to "receive[]                                                                                                                                                                                 



a   fee,   other   consideration,   or   a   gratuity   on   account   of   any   services  rendered   for  

representation or advice with respect to a claim, unless the consideration or gratuity is                                                                                                                                                                                                           

approved by the [B]oard or the court."                                                                                                                   There are two exceptions that are not relevant to                                                                                                                                      

this appeal.   



                                                     The State took the position at the fees hearing that it was not precluded                                                                                                                                                                                  

from paying Mason attorney's fees without a Board order because a Board regulation                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

does not require Board approval "if the fee is paid by the employer to the employer's                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

attorney."   8 Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 45.180(h) (2011).                                                                                                                                                                                                            As Mason pointed                             

out, he was not the employer's attorney.                                                                                    



                           3                         See  8 AAC 45.180(b), (d)(1) (requiring a fee affidavit if attorney seeks  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   (continued...)  



                                                                                                                                                                       -3-                                                                                                                                                           7543
  


----------------------- Page 4-----------------------

          4  

in   fact   his   PTD   claim   and   sought   attorney's   fees   for   work   done   between   a   2016  



                5  

stipulation                                                                                                              

                  and the State's acceptance of his PTD status, contending that Mason worked  



                                                                                          

on the claim before attempting settlement with the State in 2018.  



                                                                                                                              

                    The State responded that Mason had secured no benefits for Wozniak and  



                                                                                                                              

maintained that Mason's claimed hours and rates were unreasonable.   It argued that  



                                                                                                                       

Mason's billing practices were not credible, attaching an unsigned draft fee affidavit  



                                                                                                                    

from settlement discussions.  The State did not ask the Board to interpret AS 23.30.145,  



                                                                                                                              

nor did it suggest that the Board consider the value of statutory minimum fees and  



                                                                                                   

compare that value to reasonable fees when awarding attorney's fees.  

                                                                                                                    6  No one  

                                                                                                                              

                    The Board held a hearing on the fees dispute in March 2019. 



testified at the hearing.  Mason objected to some documents the State had attached to its  

                                                                                                                                



hearing brief and asked the Board to allow him "additional time to address . . . the  

                                                                                                                              



comments and derisions [sic]" the State made in its brief related to his fee affidavit. The  

                                                                                                                              



State asserted that it was "not calling Mr. Mason a liar," "a bad person," or "a dishonest  

                                                                                                                      



person," saying it was only attacking "the credibility of his billing practice." The Board  

                                                                                                                           



          3         (...continued)  



                                                                                                                           

more than statutory minimum fees under subsection .145(a) or reasonable fees under  

                  

subsection .145(b)).  



          4         SeeAlaska Interstatev. Houston, 586 P.2d 618, 620 (Alaska1978)(holding  

                                                                                                                       

that  a  formal  controversion  is  not  needed  for  the  Board  to  award  fees  under  

                                                                                                                          

AS 23.30.145(a) if claim is controverted in fact).  

                                                                   



          5         In  2016  the  State  and  Wozniak  stipulated  to  Wozniak's  continuing  

                                                                                                                  

entitlement to temporary total disability and settled related issues, including attorney's  

                                                                                                                     

fees.  



          6         The Board had scheduled a hearing on the written claim before the State  

                                                                                                                            

accepted the compensability of PTD benefits.  The State indicated that one reason it  

                                                                                                                                 

agreed to PTD benefits when it did was because the case was already scheduled for a  

                                                                                                                                  

hearing.  



                                                               -4-                                                         7543
  


----------------------- Page 5-----------------------

took the objection under advisement, and the parties proceeded to argue their cases.                                                                                                  



Neither party offered evidence                                 of thepotential                 valueofWozniak's ongoing PTD benefits                                 

or the amount Mason might receive as statutory minimum fees on future benefits.                                                                                           7  



                                                                                                                                                                        

                            In its written decision the Board made detailed findings of fact.  It found  



                                                                                                                                                                           

that fromFebruary 17, 2016, when the State and Wozniak entered into a stipulation, until  



                                                                                                                                                                          

March 26, 2018, when Mason prepared a draft settlement proposal about PTD, the State  



                                                                                                                                                                             

had no controversion in effect and was not resisting any benefit.  The Board found that  



                                                                                                                                                                            8  

                                                                                                                                                                               on  

the State "began resisting accepting [Wozniak] as permanently and totally disabled" 



April 9, 2018, when it rejected the settlement proposal.  

                                                                                                



                            Becauseofitsfinding about theState'sresistance, theBoard evaluated only  

                                                                                                                                                                            



Mason's billing entries on or after April 9, 2018.  It approved 51.4 hours for work up to  

                                                                                                                                                                                 



February  28,  2019,  disallowing  about  10  claimed  hours.                                                                    The  Board  awarded  an  

                                                                                                                                                                               



additional 4.9 hours for hearing-related work.  After detailing Mason's experience as a  

                                                                                                                                                                                  



workers' compensation attorney, the Board found that $400 was a "reasonable and fully  

                                                                                                                                                                           



compensable" hourly rate for Mason.  The Board found that after the State rejected the  

                                                                                                                                                                              



2018 settlement proposal, it "vigorously defended against" the PTD claim and that  

                                                                                                                                                                            



"Mason provided valuable legal services" and "succeeded in obtaining" PTD benefits  

                                                                                                                                                                    



for Wozniak. The Board noted, "While the nature, length and complexity of the services  

                                                                                                                                                                    



performed were not unusual, the benefits resulting from Mason's services are significant  

                                                                                                                                                               



              7             See   AS   23.30.145(a)   (allowing   Board   to   award   attorney's   fees   as   a  



percentage of benefits when employer controverts a claim and employee's attorney                                                                                   

successfully obtains award of compensation).                    



              8             In Harnish Group, Inc. v. Moore, we stated that a controversion in fact  

                                                                                                                                                                             

occurs "when an employer [does] not 'unqualifiedly accept' " an employee's claim. 160  

                                                                                                                                                                             

P.3d 146, 151 (Alaska 2007) (quoting Underwater Constr., Inc. v. Shirley, 884 P.2d 156,  

                                                                                                                                                                            

 159 (Alaska 1994)).  

                           



                                                                                       -5-                                                                                7543
  


----------------------- Page 6-----------------------

as   [Wozniak]   will   continue   to   receive   permanent   total   disability   benefits   while   he  



remains in that status."       



                          The Board awarded fees solely under AS 23.30.145(a), deciding that the                                                                 



State had controverted in fact Wozniak's PTD benefits; it did not award fees under                                                                          



AS    23.30.145(b).       The    Board    denied                                       all   of        Mason's    requested    fees    from  

                                                                                    9   And it decided that Mason was entitled to  

February 19, 2016 through March 30, 2017.                                                                                                                          



$22,520 in attorney's fees for work he did from April 9, 2018, through the time of  

                                                                                                                                                                   



hearing. It then awarded Mason additional ongoing statutory minimum fees "during the  

                                                                                                                                                                  



continuance  of  [Wozniak's]  disability."                                          The  Board  approved  the  State's  $25,000  

                                                                                                                                                      



payment  to  Mason,  which  resulted  in  Mason  being  overpaid  $2,480.                                                                        The  Board  

                                                                                                                                                          



instructed  the  State  to  "offset  this  overpayment  against  future  statutory  minimum  

                                                                                                                                                   



attorney['s] fees" to Mason. The Board also awarded Mason costs, noting that the State  

                                                                                                                                                              



had not objected to any of the costs.  

                                                           



                          The State appealed to the Commission.  In its points on appeal the State  

                                                                                                                                                             



argued that:  (1) the Board erred in deciding it had controverted in fact PTD benefits;  

                                                                                                                                                      



(2) the Board erred in awarding "ongoing, statutory minimum attorney['s] fees under  

                                                                                                                                                            



AS  23.30.145(a)  in  addition  to  and  without  any  reduction  for  the  $22,520  actual  

                                                                                                                                                          



attorney['s] fees the [B]oard also awarded under AS 23.30.145(b)"; (3) the Board erred  

                                                                                                                                                             



in awarding statutory minimum fees because the amount of weekly compensation to  

                                                                                                                                                                   



Wozniak did not change; and (4) substantial evidence in the record did not support the  

                                                                                                                                                                 



Board's fees-related decision.  

                                         



                          The State's brief abandoned some appeal points and instead focused on  

                                                                                                                                                                  



arguments that the fees awarded were unreasonable and that there were inadequate  

                                                                                                                                                  



             9  

                                                                                                                                                               

                          The Board appears to have made a typographical error in the year.  The  

                                                                                                                                   

Board did not award fees to Mason for any work before March 30, 2018.  



                                                                                 -6-                                                                               7543  


----------------------- Page 7-----------------------

findings to justify both awarding a set amount of fees up to the time of the Board order                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            



and additionally awarding ongoing statutory minimum fees.                                                                                                                                                                                                    The State did not propose                                                   



an analytical template or ask the Commission to adopt one for the Board to use in                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               



AS 23.30.145(a) cases.                                                                             The State asked the Commission to reverse the Board's award                                                                                                                                                                                  



of "both $22,520 in 'reasonable and fully compensatory' hourly fees in addition to                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               



ongoing statutory minimum[] [fees]" and "award Mason ongoing statutory fees once the                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          



 statutory fees exceed the $25,000 [the State] has already paid Mr. Mason."                                                                                                                                                                                                          



                                                        Wozniak responded                                                                      that the award                                                     was consistent with                                                                       precedent   and  



 supported by substantial evidence in the record.                                                                                                                                                         He argued that his total potential PTD                                                                                                      



over his lifetime could be $675,528 if he lived as long as the life expectancy contained                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         



in an epidemiology bulletin.                                                                                           Mistakenly stating that the Board had awarded fees under                                                                                                                                                                   



both AS 23.30.145(a) and (b), he contended that the Board's award of $22,520 up to the                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        



time   of   hearing   was   only   3.3% of                                                                                                              his   total   potential   future   PTD,   which  would   be  



manifestly unreasonable as total attorney's fees.                                                                                                                                                         He maintained that the Board's award                                                                                                   



was reasonable and asked the Commission to affirm it.                                                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 10   Its decision analogized  

                                                        The Commission affirmed the Board's decision.                                                                                                                                                                                                                        



this case to one of its earlier decisions, which affirmed an award of fees under both  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

AS 23.30.145(a) and (b).11                                                                                           The Commission discussed the benefits Mason secured for  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              



Wozniak and decided the attorney's fee award was "not excessive nor unreasonable for  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              



the benefit obtained" and "supported by law and substantial evidence in the record as a  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      



whole."  



                                                        The State appeals.  

                                                                                                  



                            10                          Mason died about two weeks before the Commission's scheduled oral                                                                                                                                                                                 



argument date.                                                   Another attorney represented Wozniak beginning in November 2019.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              



                            11                           Uresco Constr. Materials, Inc. v. Porteleki, AWCAC Dec. No. 152 (May  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

 11, 2011), https://labor.alaska.gov/WCcomm/memos-finals/D_152.pdf.  

                                             



                                                                                                                                                                                -7-                                                                                                                                                                   7543
  


----------------------- Page 8-----------------------

III.        STANDARD OF REVIEW                 



                        "In    an    appeal    from    the    Alaska    Workers'    Compensation    Appeals  



                                                                                                12  

Commission, we review the Commission's decision."                                                                                                      

                                                                                                     "We independently review the  



                                                                                                                                              

Commission's conclusion that substantial evidence in the record supports the Board's  



                                                                                                                                                 13  

                                                                                                                                                     We  

factual findings by independently reviewing the record and the Board's findings." 



                                                                                                                                                        

"review the Commission's legal conclusions about the Board's exercise of discretion by  



                                                                                         14  

                                                                                                                                          

 'independently assess[ing] the Board's rulings.' "                                           "The Board's 'award of attorney's  



                                                                                                                   15  

                                                                                                                                                   

fees should be upheld unless it is "manifestly unreasonable." ' "                                                       We review de novo  



                                                                                     16  

                                                                         

whether an argument was preserved for appeal. 



IV.         DISCUSSION  



                                                                                                                                  

            A.          The State Waived Its Argument About Construing AS 23.30.145.  



                                                                                                                                                       

                        The  State  argues  that  the  Commission  erred  in  its  application  of  



                                                                                                                                        

AS 23.30.145, proposing a multi-step process for the Board to use when calculating  



                                                                                                                                                          

attorney's fees.  Wozniak contends that the State waived this argument by not raising it  



                                                                                                                                                      

earlier  in the proceedings.   In reply the State maintains that it did in fact raise the  



                                                                                                                                             

argument by asking the Commission to credit the entire $25,000 against the ongoing  



                                                                                                                                                      

statutory fees. In the alternative, the State asserts that its current argument meets the test  



            12          Burke v. Raven Elec., Inc.                     , 420 P.3d 1196, 1202 (Alaska 2018).                     



            13          Rusch v. Se. Alaska Reg'l Health Consortium                                       , 453 P.3d 784, 793 (Alaska           



2019) (quoting               Humphrey v. Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse, Inc.                                                        , 337 P.3d     

 1174, 1178 (Alaska 2014)).  

                                      



            14          Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Smith v. CSK Auto, Inc., 204 P.3d 1001,  

                                                                                                                                                  

 1007 (Alaska 2009)).  

                          



            15          Id. (quoting Williams v. Abood, 53 P.3d 134, 139 (Alaska 2002)).  

                                                                                                                                  



            16          Ivy v. Calais Co., 397 P.3d 267, 275 n.26 (Alaska 2017) (citing Mitchell v.  

                                                                                                                                                         

Mitchell, 370 P.3d 1070, 1076 (Alaska 2016)).  

                                                                        



                                                                           -8-                                                                     7543
  


----------------------- Page 9-----------------------

we have adopted for considering arguments not explicitly raised in earlier proceedings:                                                                                                      



"the issue is (1) not dependent on any new or controverted facts; (2) closely related to                                         



the   appellant's   trial   court   arguments;   and   (3)   could   have   been   gleaned   from   the  

pleadings."17  



                             But the State's argument about how the Board should apply AS 23.30.145  

                                                                                                                                                                      



was not raised before either of the administrative agencies, and it meets no part of our  

                                                                                                                                                                    



three-part test.  It is therefore waived.  Before the Board and the Commission, the State  

                                                                                                                                                                                 



argued about the reasonableness of the fees request and whether evidence supported the  

                                                                                                                                                                                     



Board's findings. Its proposal for a detailed multi-step process for the Board's use when  

                                                                                                                                                                                



awarding attorney's fees is not closely related to these arguments.  In addition, because  

                                                                                                                                                                          



the State's arguments before the Board and Commission focused on factual issues and  

                                                                                                                                                                                    



discretionary actions,  the legal argument the State now makes cannot be gleaned from  

                                                                                                                                                                                 



its agency pleadings.  

                                               



                             Most importantly the process the State proposes in its brief depends on new  

                                                                                                                                                                                   



or controverted facts.  The proposal would require the Board in every case to determine  

                                                                                                                                                                      



the "actual or estimated" value of statutory minimum fees on the benefits awarded and  

                                                                                                                                                                                   



compare that amount to an amount the Board considers a "fully compensatory and  

                                                                                                                                                                                   



reasonable" attorney's fee for the work done on the claim. The Board made no findings  

                                                                                                                                                                          



about the total amount of statutory minimum fees Mason could or would be paid during  

                                                                                                                                                                             



the time Wozniak might receive PTD benefits.  The figure the State uses as a factual  

                                                                                                                                                                           



basis for its calculations came from Mason's brief to the Commission.  Nor does the  

                                                                                                                                                                                    



 State explain how the Board would calculate the value of future statutory minimum  

                                                                                                                                                 



attorney's fees when we have expressly held that the Board cannot award future statutory  

                                                                                                                                                                         



               17            Radebaugh   v.   State,   Dep't   of   Health   & Soc.                                                Servs.,  Div.   of   Senior   &  



Disabilities Servs.                    , 397 P.3d 285, 292 (Alaska 2017) (quoting                                                   Erkins v. Alaska Tr., LLC                             ,  

265 P.3d 292, 298 n.15 (Alaska 2011)).                                 



                                                                                           -9-                                                                                  7543
  


----------------------- Page 10-----------------------

minimum fees as a lump sum because of multiple uncertainties involved in calculating                                                                            

the benefits themselves.                           18  



                            Because the State did not ask the Board or the Commission to construe  

                                                                                                                                                                     



AS 23.30.145 to require an analysis of future statutory minimum fees to compare them  

                                                                                                                                                                             



to reasonable fees, because its appellate argument depends on new facts, and because the  

                                                                                                                                                                                 



argument is neither closely related to its arguments made before the administrative  

                                                                                                                                                        



agencies nor inferable from those arguments, the State waived consideration of this  

                                                                                                                                                                               



argument.  



              B.	           The Commission Did Not Err By Deciding The Attorney's Fee Award  

                                                                                                                                                                        

                            Was   Supported   By   Substantial   Evidence   And   Not   Manifestly  

                                                                                                                                                             

                            Unreasonable.  



                            The State alternatively contends that the Board's award was manifestly  

                                                                                                                                                                 



unreasonable.  The State maintains that the fees awarded were excessive, rather than  

                                                                                                                                                                              



fully reasonable and compensatory, because the Board awarded more than the "already  

                                                                                                                                                                      



generous minimum fee." But this argument is based on the faulty premise that the award  

                                                                                                                                                                           



of statutory minimum fees in fact entitled Mason to a specific amount of future fees.  In  

                                                                                                                                                                                   



the State's view the Board awarded duplicative fees, or if the award was not a duplicative  

                                                                                                                                                               



fee, the amount was unreasonable because it "far exceeded" a reasonable fee. The State  

                                                                                                                                                                             



minimizes both the amount of work Mason did on the case and the importance  to  

                                                                                                                                                                                   



Wozniak  of  receiving  PTD  benefits.                                                 Wozniak  responds  that  the  award  was  not  

                                                                                                                                                                               



manifestly unjust.  

                        



                            Neither administrative agency determined the amount of future statutory  

                                                                                                                                                                     



minimum fees. Before the Commission Mason used information from an epidemiology  

                                                                                                                                                           



              18            See Gibeau v. Kollsman Instrument Co.                                                 , 896 P.2d 822, 823-24 (Alaska                       



 1995) (declining to allow lump-sum attorney's fees awards on future benefits because                                                  

of uncertainties and potential for "expensive and time-consuming debate before the                                                                                              

Board").  



                                                                                       -10-	                                                                                 7543
  


----------------------- Page 11-----------------------

bulletin to estimate Wozniak's potential life span and resulting future PTD benefits,                                                                                                             



assuming that Wozniak would in fact continue to receive PTD benefits for his entire                                                                                                                      



lifespan.   Mason's estimate did not take into account any possible offsets to the benefit                                                                                                             



amount.     The   Commission   cited   this   argument   in   its   decision,   but   recognized   the  



argument was based on Wozniak's "estimated lifespan" and resulted in a "possible                                                                                                                



amount" of PTD benefits. An argument in an appellate brief is not a factual finding, and                                                                                                                       



the Commission did not treat it as one.                                               



                                 The State's argument that the fees awarded are excessive is grounded in the                                                                                                     



figure Mason estimated. But we observed in                                                                   Gibeau v. Kollsman Instrument Co.                                                       that the   



calculation   method   Mason  used   was   likely   to   overestimate   the   amount   of   future  

                                      19  Wozniak's future benefits could be reduced because of offsets for other  

attorney's fees.                                                                                                                                                                                           

                                                                                    20     And no person has a certain life span; this is one  

benefits, such as Social Security.                                                                                                                                                                            

                                                             

reason we rejected Gibeau's request for a lump-sum payment of future fees.21                                                                                                                       There is  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                   



also no guarantee Wozniak will continue to receive PTD benefits indefinitely because,  

                                                                                                                                                                                                  



as Mason admitted at the Board hearing, the State could later controvert the benefits. For  

                                                                                                                                                                                                               



these reasons, we are not persuaded by the State's argument that statutory minimum fees  

                                                                                                                                                                                                              

in this case are "already generous."22  

                                                             



                 19              Id.  at 823-24.   



                 20              See  AS  23.30.224-.225  (allowing  offsets  for  disability  or  retirement  

                                                                                                                                                                                            

benefits); cf. Gibeau, 896 P.2d at 824 & n.6 (noting potential for offset because of tort  

                                                                                                                                                                                                               

settlement).  



                 21              See Gibeau, 896 P.2d at 824 (listing "uncertainty surrounding when an  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

injured worker may die" as one area of uncertainty that would require Board resolution  

                                                                                                                                                                                               

in order to award lump-sum statutory fees on future benefits).  

                                                                                                                                   



                 22              Indeed the State acknowledges that even if Wozniak received PTD benefits  

                                                                                                                                                                                                     

without offsets for the rest of his life expectancy, the Board's award would be only  

                                                                                                                                                                                                            

                                                                                                                                                                                      (continued...)  



                                                                                                       -11-                                                                                                7543
  


----------------------- Page 12-----------------------

                        Turning to the question of the actual fees awarded, we agree with the                                              



Commission's   conclusion   that  the   award   was   not   manifestly   unreasonable   and   the  



Board's order was consistent with AS 23.30.145, even though we do not adopt all of the                                                                



Commission's   reasoning.     The   Commission   considered   the   fee   award   here   to   be  



essentially the same as an award it affirmed in                                      Uresco Construction Materials, Inc. v.                             

                  23   But Porteleki involved an award under both AS 23.30.145(a) and (b), so  

Porteleki .                                                                                                                                            



Porteleki considered whether the Board correctly applied our precedent that these two  

                                                                                          

subsections "are not mutually exclusive."24                                       Porteleki  required the employer to pay  

                                                                                                                                                    



statutory minimum fees "when, and if," the amount of statutory minimum fees exceeded  

                                                                                                                                           

the reasonable fees the Board awarded under .145(b).25                                                In effect, the Board offset the  

                                                                                                                                                      



entire award of reasonable fees against any statutory minimum fees awarded.  To the  

                                                                                                                                                     



extent statutory minimum fees were ever paid under the Porteleki  order, they would  

                                                                                                                                                

never exceed the minimum percentage set out in AS 23.30.145(a).26  

                                                                                                                           



                        In  Wozniak's  case,  in  contrast,  the  Board  awarded  fees  solely  under  

                                                                                                                                                



AS 23.30.145(a) and did not offset the fixed amount of reasonable fees against ongoing  

                                                                                                                                             



statutory minimum fees.  In essence the Board awarded Wozniak AS 23.30.145(a) fees  

                                                                                                                                                    



that exceeded the statutory minimum.  The question before us is thus limited to whether  

                                                                                                                                             



            22          (...continued)  



                                                                                                                                   

 13.5% of potential total PTD benefits.  AS 23.30.145(a) sets 10% as the minimum fee  

                                           

after the first $1,000 in benefits.  



            23          AWCAC                  Dec.           No.          152          at       14-15            (May            11,         2011),  

                                                                                                                                          

https://labor.alaska.gov/WCcomm/memos-finals/D_152.pdf.  



            24          Id. at 8 (quoting Circle De Lumber Co. v. Humphrey, 130 P.3d 941, 952  

                                                                                                                                                    

n.76 (Alaska 2006)).  

                         



            25          Id.  



            26          Id.  



                                                                          -12-                                                                    7543
  


----------------------- Page 13-----------------------

the Board acted improperly by either awarding fees above statutory minimum fees or by                                                                                        



                                                                                                                                                                              27  

using the method it did instead of awarding fees as an increased percentage of benefits.                                                                                           



Based on the Board's findings the Commission correctly determined that the Board did  

                                                                                                                                                                           



not abuse its discretion.  

                            



                           Wozniak argued and the Board found that the State controverted in fact  

                                                                                                                                                                          

Wozniak's PTD benefits resulting in a possible award of minimum statutory fees.28  

                                                                                                                                                                                   



Based on Mason's affidavit documenting the time he spent on the PTD claim, Board  

                                                                                                                                                                     



regulations allowed the Board to award fees in excess of AS 23.30.145(a)'s minimum  

                                                                                                                              

fees.29          The State argues that the Board's award of more than the minimum fees is  

                                                                                                                                                                              



manifestly unreasonable and not supported by the record.  We disagree.  

                                                                                                                                 



                           Alaska  Statute  23.30.145(a)  sets  out  a  list  of  factors  for  the  Board  to  

                                                                                                                                                                             



consider when awarding fees, including not only "the nature, length, and complexity of  

                                                                                                                                                                              



the services performed" but also "the benefits resulting from the services." The Board's  

                                                                                                                                                                 



finding that theState"vigorously defended against [the]permanent total disabilityclaim"  

                                                                                                                                                                     



is supported by the record.  After the claim was filed, the State required Wozniak to  

                                                                                                                                                                             



attend an employer's medical evaluation (EME) and continued litigating the claim after  

                                                                                                                                                                        



receiving the EME report, which agreed in many respects with Wozniak's treating  

                                                                                                                                                                 



physician.   The State deposed Wozniak and continued to pursue additional medical  

                                                                                                                                                                 



evaluations  until  it  notified  the  Board  less  than  two  weeks  before  the  hearing  -  

                                                                                                                                                                           



scheduled at Mason's request - that it had "accepted [Wozniak] as permanently and  

                                                                                                                                               



              27            Cf. Circle De Lumber Co.                            , 130 P.3d at 945, 954 (affirming award of 35%                                          



of benefits).   



              28           See AS 23.30.145(a) (authorizing statutory minimum fees when employer  

                                                                                                                                                               

controverts claim); Alaska Interstate v. Houston , 586 P.2d 618, 620 (Alaska 1978)  

                                                                                                                                                                     

(holding that controversion in fact is sufficient for fees under AS 23.30.145(a)).  

                                                                                                                                       



              29            8 AAC 45.180(d).  

                                            



                                                                                    -13-                                                                               7543
  


----------------------- Page 14-----------------------

totally disabled." The                                                                    Commission and Board both recognized that the benefits resulting  



from Mason's                                                  work   are   "significant"   for   Wozniak;   the   State   does   not   dispute   this  



finding.   The parties agreed that Wozniak's medical condition was unusual, with both                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           



attorneys contacting doctors to better understand whether furthertreatment                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   was possible.                                              



The Board balanced these factors and the relatively straightforward nature of the legal                      



work in deciding to award an amount of fees that exceeded the statutory minimum.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   We  



 see no error in this decision because the Board considered the relevant statutory factors                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              



and made findings, supported by the record, about them.                                                                                                                                                          



                                                       The State also argues that the Board could not award fees by calculating an                                                                                                                                                                                                                        



amount of fees for work to the time of hearing and then ordering continuing statutory                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          



minimum fees.                                                   It contends that the Board should be limited to awarding an increased                                                                                                                                                                                       



percentage of benefits controverted and awarded if it wants to award fees in excess of the                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             



 statutory minimum under subsection .145(a).                                                                                                             



                                                       We    have    consistently    construed    AS    23.30.145    "as    reflecting    the  



legislature's intent that attorneys in compensation proceedings should be reasonably                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  30   and as providing  

compensated  for services rendered to a compensation claimant"                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

adequate fees so that competent counsel are available to represent claimants.31   Because  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                



of  the  uncertainty  in  both  the  duration  and  amount  of  Wozniak's  continuing  PTD  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              



benefits, the Board's award accomplished the statutory objectives.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                       The Board relied on our decision in Harnish Group, Inc. v. Moore, which  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          



established  that  a  controversion  in  fact  occurs  "when  an  employer  [does]  not  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  



                            30                         Rusch v. Se. Alaska Reg'l Health Consortium                                                                                                                                                , 453 P.3d 784, 794 (Alaska                                                      



2019) (quoting                                                 Rose v. Alaskan Vill., Inc.                                                                                 , 412 P.2d 503, 509 (Alaska 1966)).                                                                                  



                            31                          Wise Mech. Contractors v. Bignell, 718 P.2d 971, 973 (Alaska 1986).  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          



                                                                                                                                                                          -14-                                                                                                                                                                  7543
  


----------------------- Page 15-----------------------

                                                                                                     32  

'unqualifiedly accept' " an employee's claim,                                                            to award fees for work beginning only         



after the State rejected Mason's proposed settlement about the permanenceofWozniak's                                                                                    



disability.   The Board reasoned that before the settlement rejection the State was paying                                                                                      



compensation pursuant to a stipulation and did not contest Wozniak's entitlement to                                                                                                        



retraining benefits after that stipulation; so it had "unqualifiedly accept[ed]" Wozniak's                                                                             

                                                  33    The hours on which the fees award was based did not include  

claim during that time.                                                                                                                                                        

time Mason spent investigating the claim, which he was obligated to do.34   And because  

                                                                                                                                                                              



Wozniak was 58 years old at the time the State changed his benefits, the Board was  

                                                                                                                                                                                      



aware of the possibility of offsets that could decrease his benefit amount in the near  

                                                                                                                                                                                     

future.35  



                             In light of the uncertain amount of continuing benefits and the uncertain  

                                                                                                                                                                           



length of the human lifespan, the Board could reasonably fashion a fee award as it  

                                                                                                                                                                                            



did:  awarding fees both as a lump sum based on Mason's past work and as statutory  

                                                                                                                                                                            



minimum fees after its order. The Board's fee order ensured that Mason received at least  

                                                                                                                                                                                      



a minimum amount of fees for his work but allowed him some fees above the statutory  

                                                                                                                                                                            



minimum.  The Board has discretion to fashion an award as it sees fit so long as it does  

                                                                                                                                                                                     



not abuse that discretion.  Even if the Board's award here was somewhat higher than  

                                                                                                                                                                                      



what the State proposed as a reasonable fee and was in a novel format, neither the  

                                                                                                                                                                                        



               32             160 P.3d 146, 151 (Alaska 2007) (quoting                                                          Underwater Constr., Inc. v.                                



Shirley, 884 P.2d 156, 159 (Alaska 1994)).                                     



               33            Shirley, 884 P.2d at 159.  

                                                                           



               34            See  Alaska  R.  Prof.  Conduct  3.1  cmt.  (requiring  attorneys  to  "inform  

                                                                                                                                                                      

themselves about the facts of their clients' cases").  

                                                                                               



               35            See  AS 23.30.224 (authorizing coordination of benefits for some State  

                                                                                                                                                                                    

employees); AS 23.30.225 (allowing offsets for Social Security and pension payments).  

                                                                                                                                                                       



                                                                                           -15-                                                                                     7543
  


----------------------- Page 16-----------------------

amount   of   the   fees   nor   the   manner  in   which   they   were   awarded   was   manifestly  



unreasonable under the circumstances presented here.                                                                                                       



V.                   CONCLUSION  



                                          We AFFIRM the Commission's decision.                                                                    



                                                                                                                                           -16-                                                                                                                 7543
  

Case Law
Statutes, Regs & Rules
Constitutions
Miscellaneous


IT Advice, Support, Data Recovery & Computer Forensics.
(907) 338-8188

Please help us support these and other worthy organizations:
Law Project for Psychiatraic Rights
Soteria-alaska
Choices
AWAIC