Justia Alaska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A firefighter developed prostate cancer when he was in his mid-fifties, after working for nearly 30 years. He filed a workers’ compensation claim under a new statute creating a presumption that certain diseases in firefighters, including prostate cancer, are work related when specific conditions are met. The employer contended that the firefighter could not attach the presumption of compensability because he had not strictly complied with statutory and regulatory medical examination requirements. The employer also wanted to present expert testimony that the cause of prostate cancer was unknown. The Alaska Workers’ Compensation Board heard the claim and refused to consider parts of the expert’s testimony, deciding that the firefighter was eligible for benefits because he had attached the presumption of compensability by substantially complying with the statutory requirements and the employer had not rebutted the presumption. On appeal, the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Appeals Commission agreed, but reversed the Board’s decision disallowing the expert testimony. The Commission decided that the employer could rebut the presumption through its expert’s testimony that the cause of prostate cancer was unknown, and remanded the case to the Board for further proceedings. Because the employer also contended that the firefighter-presumption statute violated the Alaska Constitution’s equal protection guarantee, the State of Alaska intervened on appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed the Commission’s decision that the firefighter attached the presumption by substantially complying with the applicable requirements. However, the Court reversed the Commission’s decision that the employer could rebut the presumption through expert testimony that there was no known cause of prostate cancer. View "Adamson v. Municipality of Anchorage" on Justia Law

Two parents shared joint custody of their child during the pendency of their divorce, but the father's plans to move out of state led both parents to seek primary physical custody of the child. The superior court granted primary physical custody to the mother, concluding that all of the statutory factors but one were neutral between the parents but that the mother was more likely than the father to facilitate a close and continuing relationship between the other parent and the child. The father then appealed, arguing that the superior court erred: (1) by failing to find that the father had superior capability to meet the child's needs; and (2) by prompting the father to discuss his concerns about the mother's parenting and then holding those concerns against the father in the continuing-relationship determination. Finding no abuse of the trial court's discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed that court's determinations in all respects. View "James R. v. Kylie R." on Justia Law

Simone H. appealed the trial court's order terminating her parental rights to her son, Irving. Simone challenged the trial court's denial of her request to have Irving's therapy records released to her for use during the termination trial and the trial court's finding that the Office of Children's Services (OCS) made reasonable efforts to provide services designed to enable Irving's safe return to her custody. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court acted within its discretion in denying Simone's request for access to Irving's therapy records and that substantial evidence supported the trial court's finding that OCS made reasonable efforts to reunify Simone with Irving.View "Simone H. v. Alaska Dept. of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services" on Justia Law

Gregg Conitz filed suit against his employer, Teck Alaska Incorporated, alleging discrimination in its internal promotional decisions. The Alaska State Commission for Human Rights dismissed Conitz's complaint, and the superior court dismissed Conitz's appeal as moot. The superior court fount that the same claims had already been decided by a federal court and that the doctrine of res judicata precluded further pursuit of the claims if they were remanded to the Commission. Conitz appealed, but finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Conitz v. Alaska State Commission for Human Rights" on Justia Law

In 2010, the superior court issued a final order requiring David and Jane Szabo to pay unpaid fines assessed by the Municipality of Anchorage or failing to remove junk stored on their property. The Szabos did not appeal the order. A year later, they filed an Alaska Civil Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment. The superior court denied the motion and also denied a subsequent motion for reconsideration. The Szabos appealed, arguing that the fines assessed in this case were unconstitutionally excessive and the municipal code provision under which the Municipality proceeded is unconstitutional. Because the Supreme Court, after its review, concluded that the Szabos' claims did not assert a basis for relief under any section of Rule 60(b), the Court affirmed. View "Szabo v. Municipality of Anchorage" on Justia Law

The superior court adjudicated Candace as a child in need of aid because she had been sexually abused by her adoptive brother. The superior court nonetheless ordered that Candace be returned to her parents' home, holding that the Department of Health and Social Services, Office of Children's Services (OCS), had failed to present "qualified expert testimony" as required by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) to support a finding that she would likely suffer serious physical or emotional harm in her parents' custody. After review of the case, the Alaska Supreme Court concluded that the superior court's failure to accept OCS's proposed expert witnesses as qualified was error, and therefore vacated the order placing Candace with her parents. View "In the Matter of Candance A." on Justia Law

A public employee filed a complaint with the Commission for Human Rights in 2007 alleging employment discrimination and filed another complaint with the superior court in 2012. Upon learning of the 2012 complaint, the executive director dismissed the 2007 complaint, citing AS 18.80.112(b)(4). Alaska Statute 18.80.112(b)(4) gives the executive director of the Alaska State Commission for Human Rights discretion to dismiss a complaint of employment discrimination if the complainant initiates an action in another forum "based on the same facts." Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the executive director had a proper statutory basis for dismissal because the 2012 civil complaint was "based on the same facts" as those alleged in the 2007 complaint. View "Grundberg v. Alaska State Communication for Human Rights" on Justia Law

An elderly father was hospitalized for medical testing and treatment. The father had granted a durable power of attorney to his eldest adult daughter and had been residing with his youngest adult daughter and her family. One of the father's adult sons initiated guardianship and conservatorship proceedings over the father. The son's petition alleged that the father was incapacitated and unable to manage his affairs or his property, citing the hospital's psychiatric evaluation and the son's own observations. The petition also alleged that the eldest and youngest daughters were not looking after the father's best interests and wishes. The son later terminated the protective proceedings following a neuropsychological evaluation by the father's expert that concluded that the father did not need a guardian. The father and his eldest daughter filed motions for attorney's fees and costs incurred in defending against the son's petition. The superior court denied both motions, concluding that Alaska Civil Rule 82 was entirely displaced by AS 13.26.131(d) and that the son's actions did not meet the standard for fee shifting required by that statute: that the petitioner initiated a proceeding that was "malicious, frivolous, or without just cause." The Supreme Court agreed with the superior court's analysis and affirmed. View "In the Matter of the Protective Proceedings of Vernon H." on Justia Law

Anna Young and David Kelly were married, and fished together on David's boat during their marriage from 1982 to 1985. Eight years after the marriage was dissolved, the federal government established a program assigning individual fishing quotas (IFQs) to certain commercial fishers; David qualified for the program and was awarded quota shares. In 1995 he approached Anna and asked whether they could reach an agreement that would prevent litigation over her right to a marital share of the IFQs. Anna agreed to forgo suit; David began paying her money, sporadically and in varying amounts. After 13 years, David's payments stopped. Anna filed suit in 2011, alleging that David had breached their contract. She also filed a motion under Alaska Civil Rule 60(b)(6), seeking to reopen their 1985 property division and allocate the IFQs as a marital asset. The superior court granted summary judgment to David, deciding that any contract for something other than a marital share was too indefinite to be enforced, that the IFQs were not marital property, and that Anna therefore had no right of recovery. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Young v. Kelly" on Justia Law

The superior court issued a declaratory judgment interpreting a settlement agreement between Nautilus Marine Enterprises and Exxon Mobil Corporation, then decided that Exxon was the prevailing party. Nautilus appealed awards of attorney fees and costs as excessive. It focused particularly on out-of-state hourly billing rates that the superior court accepted, the number of hours billed, and the court's imposition of a fee enhancement and sanction. Nautilus also contested the court's determination of prevailing party status, its award of costs, and its failure to apportion fees and costs. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed and remand for the superior court to recalculate the attorney fees award based on Alaska rates and for apportionment of fees and costs; the Court affirmed on all other issues. View "Nautilus Marine Enterprises, Inc. v. Exxon Mobil Corp." on Justia Law