Justia Alaska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The State of Alaska dismissed an employee for allegedly submitting a falsified timesheet and claiming full pay for a week when she was not working. The employee argued her dismissal violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing because a biased supervisor was involved with the termination decision, because the State's investigation was conducted unfairly, and because she was treated differently from similarly situated employees. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court's decision that there was insufficient evidence to show a breach of the implied covenant on any of these grounds. The Court also affirmed the superior court's ruling that the employee's unfair labor practice claim was untimely and therefore waived. View "Lentine v. Alaska" on Justia Law

"Jeffrey E." appealed his 30-day involuntary commitment order, arguing the evidence was insufficient to support the superior court's conclusion that he was gravely disabled. In June 2011 Jeffrey was 20 years old, had recently lost his job due to behavioral difficulties, was in the process of divorcing, and was staying with family members. Jeffrey's family members became concerned about his behavior and brought him to a hospital. Jeffrey's family reported Jeffrey had not been eating, drinking, sleeping, or performing any self-care for several days- " he had more or less remained seated in a catatonic state," to the point of urinating on himself. Jeffrey's family also reported Jeffrey had made comments about others being able to read his mind, had responded aggressively to challenges, and had a family history of mental illness. Because Jeffrey was uncommunicative, hospital staff could not determine if he was actively psychotic. Although unable to articulate how he would behave differently, Jeffrey wanted to go home and "denied thoughts or plans of self harm or harm to others." Hospital staff concluded Jeffrey "may be experiencing symptoms of psychosis but it is difficult to assess" and that "[h]e could benefit from further assessment and stabilization . . . as it is possible he is experiencing psychosis." The superior court granted an ex parte order requiring Jeffrey's transport to Alaska Psychiatric Institute (API) for examination. A few days later API staff filed a petition for an involuntary 30-day commitment, and the court held a hearing on this petition. Because the superior court did not err in concluding that the respondent was gravely disabled under the required clear and convincing evidence standard, the Supreme Court affirmed the 30-day commitment order. View "In Re Necessity for the Hospitalization of Jeffrey E." on Justia Law

A State of Alaska employee was discharged. With union representation, the employee unsuccessfully challenged his termination in grievance proceedings. When he later filed suit for wrongful termination, the State subpoenaed the union representative to appear for a deposition with the union's grievance file. The superior court denied the employee's privilege-based request for a protective order. The Supreme Court granted the employee's petition for review to consider whether a union-relations privilege exists in Alaska. The Court concluded the privilege exists by implication of Alaska statutes, and therefore reversed the superior court's ruling and remanded the case for application of the privilege to the discovery dispute. View "Peterson v. Alaska" on Justia Law

Holiday Alaska, Inc. (Holiday) sells tobacco at over 25 stores in Alaska, and each store holds a tobacco license endorsement from the State. The State sought to suspend five different Holiday stores' tobacco license endorsements following five separate incidents of Holiday employees' illegal tobacco sales to minors. Each case resulted in conviction: One employee was found guilty by default judgment, three pled guilty, and one was found guilty at trial. Holiday requested a hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings in each case. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held two hearings. The ALJ first considered the allegations against Holiday resulting from four of the convictions and issued a consolidated decision; the ALJ later considered the allegations against Holiday resulting from one additional employee's conviction and issued a separate decision. Throughout the proceedings Holiday asserted various constitutional challenges, which the ALJ denied because he could not "rule on a constitutional challenge that seeks to nullify the statute." However, the ALJ allowed Holiday to present evidence relevant to its constitutional challenges to construct a factual record for appeal. Holiday appealed the ALJ decision to the superior court, which rejected Holiday's constitutional arguments. Holiday presented one challenge on appeal: whether AS 43.70.075 violated its due process rights. In "Godfrey v. State of Alaska, Department of Community & Economic Development," the Supreme Court upheld a version of AS 43.70.075, the tobacco endorsement statute, against several due process challenges. While those challenges were pending the legislature amended the statute to address due process concerns. In this opinion, the Court considered due process challenges to the amended statute, and affirmed the superior court's conclusion that the amended statute provides due process. View "Holiday Alaska, Inc. v. Alaska" on Justia Law

After the State of Alaska issued a plan for summer-use rules at Willow Lake, at which the State operates as a float plane facility, a non-profit corporation brought suit against the State and a float plane operator, alleging: (1) the State's plan was unconstitutional, improperly issued, and preempted by federal navigable water and aviation laws; and (2) the float plane operations created a public nuisance. The superior court granted summary judgment on the basis that the corporation lacked standing to bring its claims, but further concluded that the use plan was properly issued and not preempted by federal navigable water law. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s ruling that the use plan was not a regulation required to be promulgated under formal administrative procedures. But because the corporation had associational standing and there was insufficient development of the record for the preemption ruling, the Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Friends of Willow Lake, Inc. v. Alaska" on Justia Law

A healthcare worker was sprayed in the eye with fluids from an HIV-positive patient. She received preventive treatment and counseling. Her employer initially paid workers' compensation benefits; it later filed a controversion based on its doctor's opinion that the employee was able to return to work. The employee asked for more benefits, but the Alaska Workers' Compensation Board denied her claim. The employee appealed, but the Alaska Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission affirmed the Board's decision. Because the Supreme Court agreed with the Commission that substantial evidence supported the Board's decision, the Court affirmed the Commission's decision. View "Runstrom v. Alaska Native Medical Center" on Justia Law

The Office of Rate Review, a division of the State Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), set a Medicaid payment rate for North Star Hospital based on a 2005 home office cost report that did not reflect a substantial increase in costs incurred by North Star in 2006. While making its determination, the Office of Rate Review had access to an unaudited version of a 2006 home office cost report that reflected these increased costs. The Office of Rate Review refused to grant North Star's request for an interim rate pending the audit of the 2006 report or to reconsider the rate once it received the audited 2006 report. In response, North Star administratively challenged the Office of Rate Review's rate determination. The DHSS Commissioner concluded that the Office of Rate Review's refusal to consider data from the unaudited 2006 report was proper and that the Office of Rate Review was not required to grant North Star a temporary rate preceding completion of the audit of the 2006 report. The Commissioner also concluded that DHSS did not have jurisdiction to determine whether 7 Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 150.170(b)(12) was in conflict with AS 47.07.070, which requires that the rate be based upon reasonable costs. North Star appealed the decision to the superior court and the superior court reversed, concluding that because the audited 2006 home office cost statement was overdue at no fault of North Star, it was error for the Office of Rate Review to refuse to grant North Star's request for a temporary rate in order to consider the audited version of the 2006 report. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court's decision. View "Alaska v. North Star Hospital" on Justia Law

This appeal presented the question of whether the Alaska State Commission for Human Rights (the Commission) must interview one or more witnesses identified by a complainant before dismissing a complaint for lack of substantial evidence to support a discrimination claim. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the statutory duty to impartially investigate implied that the Commission must make a reasonable effort to interview at least some of the witnesses identified by a complainant where it appears that they may have relevant information. The Court also concluded that this duty was not satisfied under the facts of this case because the Commission did not interview any of the witnesses identified by the complainant even though they potentially had relevant information. View "Toliver v. Alaska State Comm'n for Human Rights" on Justia Law

Appellants Richard and Durena Tracy appeal the superior court’s dismissal of their state law negligence and federal constitutional claims against the State of Alaska, Department of Health and Social Services, Office of Children’s Services (OCS). This case arose from Child in Need of Aid (CINA) proceedings to protect their granddaughter, Annie. The Tracys also appealed the superior court’s denial of summary judgment in their favor and its award of attorney’s fees against them. The Tracys are the biological grandparents of "Annie" and now her adoptive parents. When Annie was five, a kindergarten teacher erroneously suspected Annie had been victim to sexual abuse by Richard. OCS investigated the allegation, all the while Richard was not permitted contact with Annie until the investigation was complete. When the allegations were deemed groundless by an OCS expert, Richard and Durena sued OCS for damages stemming from the fees and expenses they incurred defending themselves from the OCS investigation. Ultimately the Tracys lost that battle, and the district court granted OCS's request for attorney fees. Affirming the superior court's dismissal of the Tracys' claims, the Supreme Court vacated the award of attorneys' fees against the Tracys. The Court found that because there was no bad faith nor asserted with improper motive, the superior court should not have given OCS an award of fees. View "Tracy v. Alaska" on Justia Law

Eight days after relinquishing her parental rights to twin children, their mother filed a motion requesting that the superior court order the Department of Health and Social Services, Office of Children's Services (OCS) to release the children's annual Permanent Fund Dividends (dividends) to her. The superior court granted the motion. The guardian ad litem (GAL) and OCS opposed her motion. The superior court ordered OCS to provide proof of compliance with 15 AAC 23.223(i). OCS filed copies of the address change forms and an affidavit of the OCS employee who completed the forms stating OCS had complied with the Department's regulation. The superior court concluded OCS's filing did not comply with the regulation's "evidence of the change in legal custody" requirement and ordered OCS to release the dividends to the mother. The GAL sought reconsideration, which the superior court denied. The Supreme Court granted the GAL's petition for review. OCS and the GAL argued that the fact the Department paid the dividends to OCS suggests the Department itself thought the change of address forms were sufficient to comply with 15 AAC 23.223(i) and the superior court should have deferred to the Department's determination. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed: the superior court (and all of the parties in the superior court proceeding) knew of OCS's custody of the children because the superior court itself signed the custody order. "There was and could be no dispute that OCS actually was entitled to redirect and hold the children's dividends, regardless of the information provided to the Department." The Court reversed the superior court's decision. View "Tea, Guardian Ad Litem, on Behalf of A.T. and S.T." on Justia Law