Harris v. M-K Rivers, 325 P.3d 510

Willard Harris suffered a 1976 work-related spinal cord injury leaving him paraplegic with additional medical complications.
M-K Rivers controverted several medical benefits; Harris filed a written workers’ compensation claim in 2007 as controversies persisted.
Board found some controversies were frivolous, unfair, or in bad faith, and imposed penalties and notified the Division of Insurance.
The Commission reversed part of the Board’s decision, finding some issues moot and limiting penalties.
Harris appealed the Commission’s reversal of penalties, the Board’s diabetes-related restraints, and attorney’s fees; M-K Rivers cross-appealed preservation and mootness issues.
The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the Board with instructions to remand to the Board for reconsideration of attorney’s fees and related issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the controversion issue was properly before the Board	Harris (through the worker)	M-K Rivers	Yes; the issue was preserved and properly before the Board.
Whether penalties could be imposed for bad-faith controversion of medical benefits	Harris; penalties may be imposed for bad-faith controversion even without bills paid	M-K Rivers; penalties limited if no bills presented or no compensation owing	Penalties could be imposed for bad-faith controversion, including medical benefits, and the Board’s limitation was error.
Whether future claims for diabetes treatment and non-medical fitness facility attendance could be foreclosed unilaterally	Harris; ongoing compensability and treatments may be challenged	M-K Rivers; stipulation limited future contestations	Board erred in broad foreclosure; limited modification required without altering the stipulation.
Whether attorney’s fees awards were correctly decided on remand	Harris; seeks fees awarded on appeal	M-K Rivers; seeks reversal of fees awarded	Remand with instructions to reinstate Board’s attorney’s fees award and award fees on remand for Harris’s appeal.

Harp v. ARCO Alaska, Inc., 831 P.2d 352 (Alaska 1992) (good faith standard for controversion penalties; evidence-based inquiry)
Childs v. Copper Valley Elec. Ass’n, 860 P.2d 1184 (Alaska 1993) (medical benefits within penalty scope; insurer incentives to pay promptly)
Sumner v. Eagle Nest Hotel, 894 P.2d 628 (Alaska 1995) (penalties when controversion delays medical care)
Summers v. Korobkin Construction, 953 P.2d 500 (Alaska 1998) (prospective determination of compensability; medical benefits included in penalties)
Hammer v. City of Fairbanks, 814 P.2d 1369 (Alaska 1991) (PPI due when rating received; penalties for delay if controversion filed inadequately)
Native Village of Elim v. State, 990 P.2d 1 (Alaska 1999) (statutory interpretation guiding penalties and compensation scope)
Grimm v. Wagoner, 77 P.3d 423 (Alaska 2003) (statutory interpretation principles in workers’ compensation)