Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 23.30.122 (2026)
Credibility of witnesses
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 23.30.122. Credibility of witnesses.
The board has the sole power to determine the credibility of a witness. A finding by the board concerning the weight to be accorded a witness's testimony, including medical testimony and reports, is conclusive even if the evidence is conflicting or susceptible to contrary conclusions. The findings of the board are subject to the same standard of review as a jury's finding in a civil action.
The board has the sole power to determine the credibility of a witness. A finding by the board concerning the weight to be accorded a witness's testimony, including medical testimony and reports, is conclusive even if the evidence is conflicting or susceptible to contrary conclusions. The findings of the board are subject to the same standard of review as a jury's finding in a civil action.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 51
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1989–2025 · leading case: ARCTEC Servs. v. Cummings, 295 P.3d 916 (Alaska 2013).
ARCTEC Servs. v. Cummings, 295 P.3d 916 (Alaska 2013). “But the legislature decided that issue when it enacted AS 23.30.122. The legislature considered rewriting the statute in 2005, when it created the Commission, to require the Board to make specific findings about eredi-bility, but it ultimately chose not to.”
Adamson v. Univ. of Alaska, 819 P.2d 886 (Alaska 1991). “See AS 23.30.122. Based on our review of the record, we affirm the Board's decision on the TTD benefits.”
Cornelison v. TIG Ins., 376 P.3d 1255 (Alaska 2016). “Seres and Johnson based in part on its review of the video, which the Board said showed a large number of edits and cuts. The Board specifically noted that the edited video showed Floyd “sitting or bent down” followed by a shot of him standing “without capturing his efforts to…”
Smith v. CSK Auto, Inc., 204 P.3d 1001 (Alaska 2009). “AS 23.30.122, .128(b). 9 . AS 23.30.128(a), (c).”
Norcon, Inc. v. Alaska Workers' Comp. Bd., 880 P.2d 1051 (Alaska 1994). “AS 23.30.122. [3] However, we find it necessary to clarify that any weighing of testimony does not take place at the rebuttal stage.”
Veco Alaska, Inc. v. State, Dep't of Labor, Div. of Workers' Comp., Second Injury Fund, 189 P.3d 983 (Alaska 2008). “The qualifying condition, in combination with the subsequent injury, need only produce a disability that is greater than what would have resulted from the subsequent injury alone.”
At & T ALASCOM v. Orchitt, 161 P.3d 1232 (Alaska 2007). “AS 23.30.122. 26 . The board did not explicitly identify which experts it relied on in making its findings.”
Smith v. Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks, 172 P.3d 782 (Alaska 2007). “AS 23.30.122. 45 . Veco, Inc. v. Wolfer, 693 P.”
Rivera v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 247 P.3d 957 (Alaska 2011). “AS 23.30.122 ("A finding by the board concerning the weight to be accorded a witness's testimony, including medical testimony and reports, is conclusive.”
Stephens v. ITT/Felec Servs., 915 P.2d 620 (Alaska 1996). “B. Preservation of Remaining Issues ITT argues that the only question appealed to the superior court in September 1991 was the issue of whether the employer rebutted the presumption of compensability.”
Thoeni v. Consum. Elec. Servs., 151 P.3d 1249 (Alaska 2007). “3d 420, 424 (Alaska 2004); see AS 23.30.122. 12 . Municipality of Anchorage v.”
Humphrey v. Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse, Inc., 337 P.3d 1174 (Alaska 2014). “10 Applying AS 23.30.122 and the substantial evidence test, the Commission held that "the board's finding that Humphrey voluntarily quit his job was amply supported by the evidence.”
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.