Nelson v. Municipality of Anchorage
267 P.3d 636
Alaska2011Background
- Nelson, an employee of Alaska Concrete, was injured on February 4, 2006, at the Municipality of Anchorage's Solid Waste Services Transfer Building while delivering drill bits for a subcontractor.
- Repair work and removals related to the north cherry picker involved MACTEC, Western Power & Equipment, and Alaska Concrete (subcontractor) drilling bolts from the platform.
- Nelson's employer began paying workers' compensation benefits; six weeks later benefits were controverted due to alleged intoxication, and Nelson did not file a written WC claim.
- Nelson sued the Municipality, Western Power, and Yukon Equipment for negligence, and the superior court granted summary judgment based on the exclusive remedy provision.
- The superior court held the Municipality could be a project owner; Nelson challenged on constitutional/settlement grounds and statutory construction, which this court addresses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Municipality as project owner under AS 23.30.045(f)(2)? | Nelson argues Municipality is not a project owner. | Municipality contends it is a project owner under the statute. | Yes; Municipality qualifies as a project owner. |
| Are Nelson's constitutional/statutory claims ripe? | Nelson argues lack of WC remedy denies due process. | Ripeness requires pursuing available remedies; not ripe yet. | Not ripe; remedies must be pursued or adjudicated. |
| Does controversion leave Nelson to common law remedies? | Controversion removes WC coverage, permitting tort action. | Controversion does not automatically permit common-law suit. | Controversion does not automatically leave to common-law remedies. |
| Do AS 23.30.045(d) and AS 23.30.045(f) conflict; are they harmonizable? | D and f are redundant; statute should not conflict. | D applies broadly; f covers project owners; no conflict. | No conflict; both apply; Municipality can be project owner under f. |
Key Cases Cited
- Himschoot v. Shanley, 908 P.2d 1035 (Alaska 1996) (duality of Board vs. court in status at injury; bifurcated process)
- Estate of Milos v. Quality Asphalt Paving, Inc., 145 P.3d 533 (Alaska 2006) (status at injury material; exclusive remedy protection not absolute)
- Ben Lomond, Inc. v. Municipality of Anchorage, 761 P.2d 119 (Alaska 1988) (ripeness and administrative remedies doctrine)
- Mustafoski v. State, 867 P.2d 824 (Alaska App. 1994) (state as 'person' for purposes of statutes; statutory interpretation)