Eder v. M-K Rivers
2016 Alas. LEXIS 120
| Alaska | 2016Background
- Harvey Eder injured his neck in Alaska in 1975; the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Board denied further benefits in 1977. Eder later pursued California workers’ compensation benefits for a separate accident; California doctors apportioned some disability to the Alaska injury.
- Eder filed a written Alaska claim in 1986 (seeking reopening/latent defect/PTD); the record shows depositions and a Statement of Readiness but no completed Board hearing; counsel who appeared then later died and the matter was not pursued.
- In 2012 Eder (pro se) moved to reopen his Alaska claim seeking PTD and other benefits; the Board dismissed the 2012 claim as barred by res judicata and rejected his tolling argument based on mental incompetence.
- Eder appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Commission, sought waiver of fees and copies of the administrative record, and repeatedly requested extensions to file his opening brief because he lacked the complete record and was indigent/homeless. The Commission granted several extensions but warned dismissal if the brief/excerpt was not filed by a set date.
- The Commission issued an order to show cause and then dismissed the appeal for failure to prosecute, relying in part on its reading of 8 AAC 45.030 (a Board regulation governing copying/fees) to justify not providing free copies to Eder. The Alaska Supreme Court reviewed only whether the Commission abused its discretion in dismissing the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Eder's Argument | M‑K Rivers / Commission's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Commission properly dismissed Eder’s appeal for failure to prosecute | Eder argued he could not prepare or file an adequate brief because he lacked the complete administrative record and was indigent/homeless; he sought waiver or provision of copies | Commission/M‑K Rivers argued Eder failed to show good cause, was dilatory, and the division/regulation precludes providing free copies — dismissal was within discretion | Reversed — dismissal was an abuse of discretion; Commission gave erroneous regulatory basis and made inadequate findings on good cause |
| Whether 8 AAC 45.030 prohibits the Commission (or division) from waiving copying fees for indigent appellants | Eder contended the regulation does not mandate charging fees (uses “may”) and does not bar waivers for indigent litigants | Commission interpreted 8 AAC 45.030 as precluding free duplication and relied on it to deny providing record copies | Court held the regulation does not forbid waiving copying costs; Commission erred to treat it as a bar and was inconsistent in waiving transcription fees |
| Whether the Commission made adequate findings to support dismissal (good‑cause analysis) | Eder asserted he showed circumstances (homelessness, financial inability, attempts to obtain record) constituting good cause | M‑K Rivers argued Eder’s filings were haphazard and delays unjustified; Commission relied on alleged regulatory prohibition | Court held the Commission failed to make required findings on whether noncompliance was beyond Eder’s control or whether he acted in good faith; remand required for proper findings/procedure |
Key Cases Cited
- Humphrey v. Lowe’s Home Improvement Warehouse, Inc., 337 P.3d 1174 (Alaska 2014) (standard for appellate review of commission decisions)
- Copeland v. Ballard, 210 P.3d 1197 (Alaska 2009) (litigant’s strong interest in accessing the record for appeal)
- Bustamante v. Alaska Workers’ Comp. Bd., 59 P.3d 270 (Alaska 2002) (reversal where transcription fees not waived for indigent litigant)
- Bolieu v. Our Lady of Compassion Care Ctr., 983 P.2d 1270 (Alaska 1999) (remand required when agency fails to make necessary findings)
- Sheehan v. Univ. of Alaska, 700 P.2d 1295 (Alaska 1985) (abuse of discretion standard and when an agency action is arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable)