Richard Roberge v. ASRC Construction Holding Company and Arctic Slope Regional Corporation
503 P.3d 102
Alaska2022Background
- Roberge injured his shoulder in Alaska in May 2014, returned to Idaho, and received temporary total disability (TTD) payments. Employer paid a COLA‑adjusted weekly amount of $834.85 through mid‑Aug. 2015.
- Roberge later claimed the maximum statutory weekly compensation ($1,143 for his injury date) and sought a rate adjustment; parties stipulated facts and submitted the question on the written record.
- The Workers’ Compensation Board applied the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Appeals Commission decision in Northern Construction v. James and denied Roberge’s claim; the Commission declined to reconsider James. Roberge appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court.
- Legal question: whether AS 23.30.175 requires applying the out‑of‑state COLA (AS 23.30.175(b)(1)) to the benefit computed under AS 23.30.185 before or after imposing the statewide maximum compensation cap in AS 23.30.175(a).
- Agreed numeric inputs: spendable weekly wage $2,190.98; 80% TTD = $1,752.78; COLA 72.04% → COLA‑adjusted amount $1,262.70 (exceeds $1,143 max). Employer argued cap first then COLA → $823.42; Roberge argued COLA first then cap → $1,143.
- Holding: the Court overruled James, held the statute requires applying the COLA first (to the benefit computed under AS 23.30.185) and then applying the AS 23.30.175(a) maximum cap; remanded for award consistent with that method.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Roberge) | Defendant's Argument (ASRC) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sequence for applying out‑of‑state COLA vs. Alaska maximum cap | COLA under AS 23.30.175(b)(1) applies to the weekly compensation amount computed under AS 23.30.185, and then AS 23.30.175(a) cap is applied if exceeded | AS 23.30.175(a) maximum applies first (giving an Alaska base), and then the COLA multiplier in .175(b)(1) is applied to that capped Alaska rate | Apply COLA first to the AS 23.30.185 amount, then apply the AS 23.30.175(a) cap; overruled James |
| Role of AS 23.30.220 / benefit calculator in computing the weekly benefit | AS 23.30.220 is limited to computing spendable weekly wage; it cannot displace statutory calculation steps in AS 23.30.175 and AS 23.30.185 | The Division’s online benefit calculator (authorized by AS 23.30.220) effectively establishes the base weekly compensation used before COLA/cap | Court rejected the calculator as altering statutory text; AS 23.30.220 does not authorize bypassing statutory steps |
| Use of legislative history and canons (expressio unius) | Excluding subsection (a) from the list in (b)(1) shows legislature intended the COLA be applied before the maximum; 1988 and 2000 amendments support that reading | The 1982/2005 amendments and later history show the legislature expected the Alaska maximum to function as the base and the 2005 cap confirms policy against rewarding out‑of‑state recipients | Court applied expressio unius and legislative history to conclude the statutory list excludes (a), supporting COLA‑first application |
Key Cases Cited
- Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Darrow, 403 P.3d 1116 (Alaska 2017) (framework for independent judicial review of statutory interpretation and canons of construction)
- Alaska Pacific Assurance Co. v. Brown, 687 P.2d 264 (Alaska 1984) (addressed constitutionality and rationale for adjusting out‑of‑state benefits to local purchasing power)
- Progressive Casualty Ins. Co. v. State, 165 P.3d 624 (Alaska 2007) (principle that amendments ordinarily effect substantive change unless clearly clarification)
- Louie v. BP Exploration (Alaska), Inc., 327 P.3d 204 (Alaska 2014) (discussion of maximum compensation rate history and statutory context)