Monday, May 14th, 2007...9:03 am
Oral Argument: AkPIRG v. State
Jump to Comments
The Alaska Supreme Court heard oral argument on April 17th in Alaska Public Interest Research Group v. State, S-12341. Gavel to Gavel describes the appeal as follows:
The Alaska Workers Compensation Appeals Commission was created in 2005 and replaced the superior court in hearing appeals of decisions by the Alaska Workers Compensation Board. The Alaska Public Interest Research Group challenged the creation of the Commission in the executive branch as a violation of the separation of powers doctrine. The superior court ruled against AKPIRG, and the appeal goes to the Supreme Court.
Sen Tan was the Superior Court judge. Chancy Croft represents AkPIRG; Laura Bottger and Paul Lyle from the Department of Law represent the State.
1 Comment
May 16th, 2007 at 10:58 am
I attended the argument regarding creation of the appeals commission. Paul Lyle, the A.G. defending the new Commission, received about 80% of the Court’s questions. Justices Brynner and Mathews appeared to be somewhat skeptical of the Commission, or what Chancy Croft for AKPIRG called “court stripping.” Justice Brynner was concerned that the Commission, made up of non-lawyers and non-judges, would be making decisions that would have precedential effect in other areas besides workers comp. Justice Fabe suggested a decision by the Court could uphold the creation of the Commission but make clear its limitations to provide precedent to the WC Board only.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.