2019 was a very good year at the Law Office of Keenan Powell. Following are a list of Board decisions and appeals in which I had the honor to represent injured workers. You will note that all but one of the cases were against Liberty insurance.
Cavitt v Liberty Mutual, Alaska Supreme Court Op. No. 7383, July 5, 2019
In August of 2017, the Cavitt case went to hearing before the Alaska Workers Compensation Board. The Board ordered Liberty to continue paying temporary total disability (TTD) and interest for late-paid TTD. It awarded $500 in attorney fees. An appeal was filed and the Commission reversed the fees award holding that the award of future TTD was a valuable benefit which the Board had undervalued for purposes of attorney fees. Then the Commission awarded $6,000 in fees, one-half of what was sought, to the Employee’s attorney. Liberty appealed the award to the Supreme Court and lost. Attorney fees are an important benefit to Employees to make sure that there are experienced skilled counsel available to take their claims.
The Employee won.
Cavitt v Liberty Mutual, Alaska Workers’ Compensation Appeals Commission Dec. No 264, July 8, 2019
On May 15, 2018, the case went to hearing before the Board seeking temporary total disability and medical benefits. On the morning of the hearing, Liberty’s attorney represented to the Board that it had withdrawn all its controversions as of May 10, 2018 and would pay eight weeks of back-TTD. Amongst other things, the Board ordered that if the TTD was not paid within 14 days of May 10, i.e. May 24, then Liberty owed the Employee 25% penalties.
The TTD was paid late, after May 24; however Liberty refused to pay the penalties. A new claim was filed for penalties and went to hearing on September 27, 2018. The Board ruled that because there was another appeal pending in Cavitt on the issue of penalties, it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case.
An appeal was filed to the Commission. The Commission ruled that the issues in the first appeal were different than the second appeal therefor the Board had jurisdiction to decide the penalties issue. It remanded the case to the Board instructing it to award penalties.
The Employee won.
Bruketta v Liberty Mutual, Reemployment Benefits Administrator Dec. 19-0002, March 19, 2019
The Employee entered into a settlement agreement with Liberty Mutual on April 25, 2017 by which they agreed that he was eligible for reemployment benefits. The agreement, drafted by Liberty’s counsel Holmes, Weddle & Barcott stipulated “the employee agrees to immediate participation in the reemployment plan process and agrees to continue participation per medical advice and evidence. Soon thereafter, he had another surgery and additional complications and was not able to go to school. On August 27, 2018, his physician requested that the plan be put on hold until he recovered. The Reemployment Specialist notified Liberty and the Reemployment Benefits Administrator (RBA) that the plan was on hold for medical reasons, attaching the doctor’s note.
On February 4, 2019, Liberty filed a petition with the RBA to have Mr. Bruketta deemed non-compliant in the reemployment process because he had not begun school yet. As of that date, the doctor had not released him to start classes.
Liberty’s petition went to hearing before the RBA who ruled that Mr. Bruketta was not in non-compliance as he was following medical advice, as was permitted under the settlement agreement Liberty’s own attorney drafted.
The Employee won.
Meile v Liberty Northwest, AWCB Dec. No 19-0092, September 9, 2019
The Employee injured her back while working for an assisted living home in 2009. As a result, she had two surgeries but was eventually released to return to work as a personal care attendant. However, her physician told her that she would continue to suffer pain for the rest of her life. And she did continue to suffer pain intermittently. When she was working for a new employer in 2017, she had two more injuries to her back. That second employer hired Dr. David Bauer to say that her problems were caused by the 2009 injury. Two of her physicians also said the 2009 injury was the cause. A claim was filed against the first employer, insured by Liberty. Liberty did not send her to a defense medical examination.
The case went to hearing on July 17, 2019. Liberty insisted that it needed to depose one of the treating physicians so the Board kept the record open for thirty days. On the thirtieth day, Liberty’s attorney filed a notice that it would not be deposing the doctor.
The Board ruled that the Employee had proven that her current need for medical treatment was the result of the 2009 injury and awarded her medical benefits, future temporary total disability if she needed and permanent partial impairment benefits if she had a new PPI.
The Employee won.
Bruketta v Liberty Mutual, AWCB Decision 19-0096, September 23, 2019
After winning the reemployment benefits case, the Employee sought attorneys fees. The petition went to hearing on August 22, 2019. The Board ruled the Employee was entitled to have his attorney paid.
The Employee won.
Campoamor v Berkshire Hathaway, AWCB Decision 19-0114, November 8, 2019
While at work, the Employee slipped on stairs wet from melting snow and grabbed a handrailing to keep from falling, injuring his shoulder. After complications that required five surgeries, his physician recommended a total shoulder replacement. Berkshire Hathaway hired Dr. Youngblood to state his opinion that further treatment was not necessary.
At his deposition, Dr. Youngblood admitted that he charged $600 per hour for reading medical records, performing “independent” medical examinations, and writing his reports, and $650 per hour for depositions and that he typically performed 15 such evaluations per month. In an earlier case, the Board had estimated that Dr. Youngblood has the potential of earning $85,000 per month performing “independent” medical evaluations. Piasini-Branchflower v ASD, AWCB Dec. No 17-0041 (April 11, 2017). His rate had increased since the Piasini-Branchflower case.
The Board held that Dr. Youngblood’s report was unreliable. He failed to consider symptoms clearly documented in the medical records and failed to explain the Employee’s symptoms. Because Berkshire Hathaway had relied on his opinion to controvert, the Board held that the controverion was unfair and/or frivolous.
The Employee won.
Keenan Powell has practiced Workers Compensation law in the State of Alaska for over 35 years and has dedicated her practice to Workers Compensation representing injured Alaskans.. www.keenanpowell.com.
All consultations are free. To make an appointment, email: keenan@keenanpowell.com or call: 907 258 7663.