Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 23.30.010 (2026)
Coverage
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 23.30.010. Coverage.
(a) Except as provided in (b) of this section, compensation or benefits are payable under this chapter for disability or death or the need for medical treatment of an employee if the disability or death of the employee or the employee's need for medical treatment arose out of and in the course of the employment. To establish a presumption under AS 23.30.120(a)(1) that the disability or death or the need for medical treatment arose out of and in the course of the employment, the employee must establish a causal link between the employment and the disability or death or the need for medical treatment. A presumption may be rebutted by a demonstration of substantial evidence that the death or disability or the need for medical treatment did not arise out of and in the course of the employment. When determining whether or not the death or disability or need for medical treatment arose out of and in the course of the employment, the board must evaluate the relative contribution of different causes of the disability or death or the need for medical treatment. Compensation or benefits under this chapter are payable for the disability or death or the need for medical treatment if, in relation to other causes, the employment is the substantial cause of the disability or death or need for medical treatment.
(b) Compensation and benefits under this chapter are not payable for mental injury caused by mental stress, unless it is established that (1) the work stress was extraordinary and unusual in comparison to pressures and tensions experienced by individuals in a comparable work environment; and (2) the work stress was the predominant cause of the mental injury. The amount of work stress shall be measured by actual events. A mental injury is not considered to arise out of and in the course of employment if it results from a disciplinary action, work evaluation, job transfer, layoff, demotion, termination, or similar action taken in good faith by the employer.
(a) Except as provided in (b) of this section, compensation or benefits are payable under this chapter for disability or death or the need for medical treatment of an employee if the disability or death of the employee or the employee's need for medical treatment arose out of and in the course of the employment. To establish a presumption under AS 23.30.120(a)(1) that the disability or death or the need for medical treatment arose out of and in the course of the employment, the employee must establish a causal link between the employment and the disability or death or the need for medical treatment. A presumption may be rebutted by a demonstration of substantial evidence that the death or disability or the need for medical treatment did not arise out of and in the course of the employment. When determining whether or not the death or disability or need for medical treatment arose out of and in the course of the employment, the board must evaluate the relative contribution of different causes of the disability or death or the need for medical treatment. Compensation or benefits under this chapter are payable for the disability or death or the need for medical treatment if, in relation to other causes, the employment is the substantial cause of the disability or death or need for medical treatment.
(b) Compensation and benefits under this chapter are not payable for mental injury caused by mental stress, unless it is established that (1) the work stress was extraordinary and unusual in comparison to pressures and tensions experienced by individuals in a comparable work environment; and (2) the work stress was the predominant cause of the mental injury. The amount of work stress shall be measured by actual events. A mental injury is not considered to arise out of and in the course of employment if it results from a disciplinary action, work evaluation, job transfer, layoff, demotion, termination, or similar action taken in good faith by the employer.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1966–2022 · leading case: Huit v. Ashwater Burns, Inc., 372 P.3d 904 (Alaska 2016).
Huit v. Ashwater Burns, Inc., 372 P.3d 904 (Alaska 2016). “89 Senator Therriault then proposed an amendment that established the language of AS 23.30.010. 90 Senator Therriault indicated the amendment's language was developed with Assistant Attorney General Kristin Knudsen, who spoke to the committee about the bill.”
Morrison v. Alaska Interstate Constr. Inc., 440 P.3d 224 (Alaska 2019). “" The Commission concluded its discussion as follows: The Board erred in relying on pre-2005 case law for the proposition that an onset of symptoms following the 2014 injury is sufficient to define it as the substantial cause for all ongoing medical treatment without following…”
Shea v. State, Dep't of Admin., Div. of Ret. & Benefits, 267 P.3d 624 (Alaska 2011). “Compare AS 23.30.010 (workers' compensation) with AS 39.”
Runstrom v. Alaska Native Med. Ctr., 280 P.3d 567 (Alaska 2012). “" It decided that *572 the second method of rebutting the presumption from prior case law-directly eliminating any reasonable possibility that employment was a factor in causing the disability-was "incompatible with the statutory standard for causation under AS 23.30.010(2)."…”
Shawn Murphy v. Fairbanks North Star Borough, 494 P.3d 556 (Alaska 2021). “045(a) and former AS 23.30.010). For example, AS 23.30.045, both at the time of Murphy’s injury and today, describes in subsection (a) the employer’s general duty to pay compensation of various types, including medical benefits, and then in subsection (b) states that…”
Kelly v. State, Dep't of Corr., 218 P.3d 291 (Alaska 2009). “10, § 9, FSSLA 2005 (codified at AS 23.30.010(b)). 12 . See Williams v. State, Dep't of Revenue, 938 P.”
Forest v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 830 P.2d 778 (Alaska 1992). “The difference lies in the fact that the malpractice action involves liability for only a part of the injury while every other third-party action involves liability of the third party for the entire injury.”
Nickels v. Napolilli, 29 P.3d 242 (Alaska 2001). “30.055[,I[tlhe only remedy left available to plaintiff is her claim for workers' compensation benefits before the Board.”
Alaska State Comm'n for Human Rights v. United Physical Therapy, United Physical Therapy v. Alaska State Comm'n for Human Rights, 484 P.3d 599 (Alaska 2021). “27 AS 23.30.010(a), .095(a); see also Bockness v.”
Shannon K. Patterson v. Matanuska-Susitna Borough Sch. Dist., 523 P.3d 945 (Alaska 2022). “3d 505, 514 (Alaska 2021) (quoting AS 23.30.010(a)). 10 Id. 11 Id. (quoting Morrison v.”
Alaska Pulp Corp. v. United Paperworkers Int'l Union, 791 P.2d 1008 (Alaska 1990). “Gernandt participated in the demonstration without compensation and, therefore, there existed no employee-employer relationship between Mr.”
Beverly J. Sumpter v. Fairbanks North Star Borough Sch. Dist., 494 P.3d 505 (Alaska 2021). “”11 Third, if the employer rebuts the presumption, the Board must then determine whether “the employment is the substantial cause” of the disability or need for treatment,12 “choos[ing] among the identified causes the most important or material cause with respect to the benefit…”
Alaska Stat. § 23.30.010(2): 1 case
Runstrom v. Alaska Native Med. Ctr., 280 P.3d 567 (Alaska 2012). “" It decided that *572 the second method of rebutting the presumption from prior case law-directly eliminating any reasonable possibility that employment was a factor in causing the disability-was "incompatible with the statutory standard for causation under AS 23.30.010(2)."…”
Alaska Stat. § 23.30.010(a): 15 cases
Morrison v. Alaska Interstate Constr. Inc., 440 P.3d 224 (Alaska 2019). “" The Commission concluded its discussion as follows: The Board erred in relying on pre-2005 case law for the proposition that an onset of symptoms following the 2014 injury is sufficient to define it as the substantial cause for all ongoing medical treatment without following…”
Huit v. Ashwater Burns, Inc., 372 P.3d 904 (Alaska 2016). “89 Senator Therriault then proposed an amendment that established the language of AS 23.30.010. 90 Senator Therriault indicated the amendment's language was developed with Assistant Attorney General Kristin Knudsen, who spoke to the committee about the bill.”
Runstrom v. Alaska Native Med. Ctr., 280 P.3d 567 (Alaska 2012). “" It decided that *572 the second method of rebutting the presumption from prior case law-directly eliminating any reasonable possibility that employment was a factor in causing the disability-was "incompatible with the statutory standard for causation under AS 23.30.010(2)."…”
Shea v. State, Dep't of Admin., Div. of Ret. & Benefits, 267 P.3d 624 (Alaska 2011). “Compare AS 23.30.010 (workers' compensation) with AS 39.”
Shawn Murphy v. Fairbanks North Star Borough, 494 P.3d 556 (Alaska 2021). “045(a) and former AS 23.30.010). For example, AS 23.30.045, both at the time of Murphy’s injury and today, describes in subsection (a) the employer’s general duty to pay compensation of various types, including medical benefits, and then in subsection (b) states that…”
Alaska Stat. § 23.30.010(b): 4 cases
Kelly v. State, Dep't of Corr., 218 P.3d 291 (Alaska 2009). “10, § 9, FSSLA 2005 (codified at AS 23.30.010(b)). 12 . See Williams v. State, Dep't of Revenue, 938 P.”
Shannon K. Patterson v. Matanuska-Susitna Borough Sch. Dist., 523 P.3d 945 (Alaska 2022). “3d 505, 514 (Alaska 2021) (quoting AS 23.30.010(a)). 10 Id. 11 Id. (quoting Morrison v.”
Runstrom v. Alaska Native Med. Ctr., 280 P.3d 567 (Alaska 2012). “" It decided that *572 the second method of rebutting the presumption from prior case law-directly eliminating any reasonable possibility that employment was a factor in causing the disability-was "incompatible with the statutory standard for causation under AS 23.30.010(2)."…”
Ge Vue v. Walmart Assocs., INC., & New Hampshire Ins. Co., 474 P.3d 270 (Alaska 2020).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.