Humphrey v. Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse, Inc.
2014 Alas. LEXIS 208
| Alaska | 2014Background
- Employee Akeem Humphrey injured his back at Lowe’s in November 2009, was cleared for light duty in January 2010, and continued to receive restricted assignments.
- Humphrey submitted a two‑weeks’ notice on February 16, 2010; his last day worked was February 22, 2010. Parties disputed whether he quit or was terminated.
- Humphrey moved to Nevada in May 2010, had continued medical treatment there, and underwent back surgery in May 2011; Alaska Board found the injury compensable and ordered medical payments and TTD from the date of surgery.
- The Board denied temporary total disability (TTD) benefits for Feb 22, 2010–May 2011, concluding Humphrey voluntarily left the workforce for non‑injury reasons, and awarded partial attorney’s fees (reduced by 30%).
- The Commission affirmed the denial of pre‑surgery TTD but vacated and remanded the Board’s attorney‑fee award for clarification; it denied Humphrey appellate attorney’s fees because he was not the successful party on appeal.
- Supreme Court affirmed the TTD denial (substantial evidence supported voluntary quit finding), reversed the Commission’s denial of appellate attorney’s fees, and remanded for further fee proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Humphrey is entitled to TTD for Feb 22, 2010–May 2011 | Humphrey argued he did not voluntarily remove himself from the labor market; his departure was injury‑related so TTD should continue | Lowe’s argued Humphrey voluntarily quit for personal (housing/transportation) reasons and thus removed himself from the labor market | Affirmed: substantial evidence supports Board finding that Humphrey voluntarily quit for non‑injury reasons, so no TTD for that period |
| Whether the statutory presumption of compensability applied to his departure and whether employer rebutted it | Humphrey contended the presumption attached and was not rebutted | Lowe’s argued it rebutted the presumption with witness testimony and personnel records | Held: presumption attached but was rebutted by substantial evidence (supervisors’ testimony and personnel file) |
| Whether the Board’s credibility/findings were inadequate for appellate review | Humphrey claimed Board failed to explain inconsistencies and omitted findings about his intent to re‑enter workforce | Lowe’s argued the Board’s findings were sufficient and credibility findings bind the Commission | Held: Board was not required to resolve every inconsistency; credibility findings were supported and binding; substantial evidence standard met |
| Whether Humphrey is entitled to attorney’s fees for his appeal to the Commission under AS 23.30.008(d) | Humphrey argued he prevailed on a significant appeal issue (fee award remand) and thus is a successful party on appeal | Commission/Lowe’s argued he was not the successful party because he failed to overturn the TTD ruling | Reversed: Supreme Court held Humphrey is a successful party on appeal and is entitled to reasonable, fully compensatory appellate attorney’s fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Vetter v. Alaska Workmen's Compensation Board, 524 P.2d 264 (Alaska 1974) (if claimant voluntarily removes self from labor market for reasons unconnected to injury, no compensable disability)
- Lewis‑Walunga v. Municipality of Anchorage, 249 P.3d 1063 (Alaska 2011) (claimant is a successful party on appeal when she prevails on a significant issue; Commission’s fee award independent of underlying claim outcome)
- Shehata v. Salvation Army, 225 P.3d 1106 (Alaska 2010) (standard of review for commission appeals and reliance on Board factual findings)