Rivera v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
247 P.3d 957
| Alaska | 2011Background
- Rivera twice injured her back at Wal-Mart (2005 and 2006) and Wal-Mart controverted after an employer EIME opined the injuries were temporary strains resolved within months.
- Board denied Rivera's claim; Rivera appealed to the AWCA, which affirmed; Rivera then appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court.
- Rivera continued to work at Wal-Mart in lighter duties after injuries; doctors treated degenerative spine changes; lay witnesses testified to ongoing pain.
- Medical experts Klimow and Yodlowski attributed pain to degenerative changes with work injuries as temporary strains; Grobner linked pain to multifactorial causes but offered limited direct causation.
- The Board applied a three-step analysis to the presumption of compensability and weighed medical opinions, giving more weight to Klimowow and Yodlowski; the Commission upheld the Board’s findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the Board's treatment of medical testimony proper? | Rivera argues Grobner’s opinion was downplayed due to a 'possibilities' framing. | Wal-Mart contends the Board correctly weighed medical evidence and applied DeYonge. | Yes; Board properly weighed medical testimony and applied the law. |
| Was lay testimony properly deemed immaterial to contested issues? | lay testimony supported Rivera’s claimed limitations and ongoing pain. | lay testimony was not material to causation or contested issues. | Yes; lay testimony was not material to the causation issue. |
| Did the Board correctly apply DeYonge and the post-2005 causation standard? | DeYonge allows compensability for aggravation of symptoms even without permanent change. | Board appropriately applied DeYonge and found any aggravation temporary. | Yes; proper application of DeYonge and causation standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- DeYonge v. NANA/Marriott, 1 P.3d 90 (Alaska 2000) (presumption of compensability and aggravation of symptoms may be compensable)
- Smith v. Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks, 172 P.3d 782 (Alaska 2007) (board must address weight given to medical testimony; lack of definitive statement can be important)
- Wollaston v. Schroeder Cutting, Inc., 42 P.3d 1065 (Alaska 2002) (ador how later medical predictor testimony may fail to rebut presumption when symptoms arise soon after injury)
- Leigh v. Seekins Ford, 136 P.3d 214 (Alaska 2006) (board must make findings on whether chronic pain precludes work and medication effects)
- Bolieu v. Our Lady of Compassion Care Ctr., 983 P.2d 1270 (Alaska 1999) (board need only make findings on material and contested issues)