Alaska Employment Law

The Legislature created the Workers Compensation Appeals Commission in 2005 as part of an effort to increase efficiency and consistency in the processing of WC claims.  The Legislature removed Superior Court jurisdiction over WC appeals (and gave that role to the Supreme Court), and provided that Commssion rulings would have the “force of legal precedent.” 

AKPIRG challenged the law, arguing that the Legislature had violated separation of powers principles in Article IV of the state Constitution by creating a court in the executive branch.  In response, the State claimed that the Commission was one of the “[r]egulatory, quasi-judicial and temporary agencies” expressly authorized by Article III, § 22. 

Superior Court Judge Sen Tan rejected AKPIRG challenge.  The Supreme Court, unanimously (via  C. J. Fabe), on Friday affirmed Judge Tan’s ruling, with one exception. 

The Supreme Court first held that the Commission is a quasi-judicial agency because it has limited jurisdiction (only WC matters); performs a quasi-judicial function (hearing appeals); lacks power to enforce its own orders (still lodged in the Superior Court); retains limited discretion (benefits are set by statute); operates in any area traditionally relegated to an agency;  and is subject to judicial review (by the Supreme Court).  

The Supreme Court did have difficulty with the Legislature’s attempt to make the Commssions’s rulings precedential.  But the Court applied the maxim of avoiding the risk of unconstitutionality and ”construe[d] the provision that decisions of the Appeals Commission have the force of legal precedent as meaning that they serve as legal precedent for the Board and the Appeals Commission only.”  (It’s hard to imagine another arena where a party would seek to apply Commission rulings - perhaps in bringing an action against an employer without WC insurance?)

 The Court noted that the Constitution does not guarantee intermediate appellate review of agency decisions, and held that it retained the power to order trials de novo if it found that WC hearing procedures violated Due Process.

Finally, the Court held that establishment of the Appeals Commission is substantive law.  Thus, the Legislature was not required to act by supermajorities when it passed the 2005.

AKPIRG v. State, Op. No. 6158 (Alaska Sept. 7, 2007).

Chancy Croft represented AKPIRG.  Paul Lyle (Fairbanks) and Laura Bottger (Anchorage) from the Department of Law represented the State.