Veco Alaska, Inc. v. State, Dep't of Labor, Div. of Workers' Comp., Second Injury Fund, 189 P.3d 983 (Alaska 2008). · cites it 50ד[22] The issue presented in this appeal is whether VECO's knowledge that Huizenga has a permanent impairment as defined in AS 23.30.205 can fairly and reasonably be inferred from the written record VECO presented to the Second Injury Fund and the Board.”
Sea-Land Servs. v. Second Injury Fund, 737 P.2d 793 (Alaska 1987). · cites it 18דAS 23.30.205(a). An employer otherwise entitled to reimbursement from the Fund must establish by a written record that it had knowledge of the employee's preexisting impairment before the subsequent injury and retained the employee despite such knowledge.”
Ketchikan Gateway Borough v. Saling, 604 P.2d 590 (Alaska 1979). · cites it 6דOnce the employer’s liability for the entire disability is established, the employer has recourse to the second injury fund, AS 23.30.205. 11 The fund, which is financed by payments made by employers of workers who suffer com-pensable injury resulting in permanent partial…”
Alaska Int'l Constructors v. State, Second Injury Fund, 755 P.2d 1090 (Alaska 1988). · cites it 11דThis workers’ compensation case involves the interpretation of the Second Injury Fund statute, AS 23.30.205. The Alaska Workers’ Compensation Board (Board) denied Alaska International Constructors’ request for reimbursement from the fund for benefits it pays to an injured…”
Veco, Inc. v. Wolfer, 693 P.2d 865 (Alaska 1985). · cites it 2דWe also recognized the mitigating effect of AS 23.30.205, the second injury fund. 2 In Providence Washington Insurance Co.”
Burke v. Raven Elec., Inc., 420 P.3d 1196 (Alaska 2018). “was the project's general contractor, and Alaska USA Federal Credit Union was the building owner and thus potentially a "project owner" under AS 23.30.045. 3 AS 23.”
Barrington v. Alaska Commc'ns Sys. Grp., Inc., 198 P.3d 1122 (Alaska 2009). “After claims have been joined together, (1) a pleading or documentary evidence filed by a party must list the master case number first and then all the other case numbers; (2) a compensation report, controversion notice, or a notice under AS 23.30.205(f) must list only the case…”
Employers Com. Union Ins. Grp. v. Christ, 513 P.2d 1090 (Alaska 1973). · cites it 4דOur Workmen’s Compensation Law, AS 23.30.205, provides a system of reimbursement to the employer of a handicapped person, where that person receives a second injury.”
Morrison v. Alaska Interstate Constr. Inc., 440 P.3d 224 (Alaska 2019). “See AS 23.30.205. The fund provides partial reimbursement to employers for some compensation when a worker has one of a list of preexisting conditions; the employer must have a written record showing it knew of the condition.”
JB Warrack Co. v. Roan, 418 P.2d 986 (Alaska 1966). · cites it 2דUnder the express terms of AS 23.30.205(a), quoted above, appellants therefore are required to provide compensation only for such SO per cent permanent partial disability and not for a permanent total disability.”
Second Injury Fund v. Arctic Bowl, 928 P.2d 590 (Alaska 1996). · cites it 8דThe Board found that DeLong had experienced a second work-related injury on July 19, 1988, that Arctic Bowl had met the “combined effects” test of AS 23.30.205(a), and that the nature of the injury was discovered by Arctic Bowl on July 31,1991.”
Providence Washington Ins. Co. v. Busby, 721 P.2d 1151 (Alaska 1986). · cites it 3דThe Court here recognizes similar ambiguity in construction of “compensation” in the present context of reimbursement of an insurance carrier by the Second Injury Fund under AS 23.30.205(a). However, in construing “compensation” for this purpose the Court looks primarily to the…”
Veco Alaska, Inc. v. State, Dep't of Labor, Div. of Workers' Comp., Second Injury Fund, 189 P.3d 983 (Alaska 2008). “[22] The issue presented in this appeal is whether VECO's knowledge that Huizenga has a permanent impairment as defined in AS 23.30.205 can fairly and reasonably be inferred from the written record VECO presented to the Second Injury Fund and the Board.”
Sea-Land Servs. v. Second Injury Fund, 737 P.2d 793 (Alaska 1987). “AS 23.30.205(a). An employer otherwise entitled to reimbursement from the Fund must establish by a written record that it had knowledge of the employee's preexisting impairment before the subsequent injury and retained the employee despite such knowledge.”
Ketchikan Gateway Borough v. Saling, 604 P.2d 590 (Alaska 1979). “Once the employer’s liability for the entire disability is established, the employer has recourse to the second injury fund, AS 23.30.205. 11 The fund, which is financed by payments made by employers of workers who suffer com-pensable injury resulting in permanent partial…”
JB Warrack Co. v. Roan, 418 P.2d 986 (Alaska 1966). “Under the express terms of AS 23.30.205(a), quoted above, appellants therefore are required to provide compensation only for such SO per cent permanent partial disability and not for a permanent total disability.”
Providence Washington Ins. Co. v. Busby, 721 P.2d 1151 (Alaska 1986). “The Court here recognizes similar ambiguity in construction of “compensation” in the present context of reimbursement of an insurance carrier by the Second Injury Fund under AS 23.30.205(a). However, in construing “compensation” for this purpose the Court looks primarily to the…”
— Alaska Stat. § 23.30.205(c) — 4 cases
Veco Alaska, Inc. v. State, Dep't of Labor, Div. of Workers' Comp., Second Injury Fund, 189 P.3d 983 (Alaska 2008). “[22] The issue presented in this appeal is whether VECO's knowledge that Huizenga has a permanent impairment as defined in AS 23.30.205 can fairly and reasonably be inferred from the written record VECO presented to the Second Injury Fund and the Board.”
Sea-Land Servs. v. Second Injury Fund, 737 P.2d 793 (Alaska 1987). “AS 23.30.205(a). An employer otherwise entitled to reimbursement from the Fund must establish by a written record that it had knowledge of the employee's preexisting impairment before the subsequent injury and retained the employee despite such knowledge.”
Alaska Int'l Constructors v. State, Second Injury Fund, 755 P.2d 1090 (Alaska 1988). “This workers’ compensation case involves the interpretation of the Second Injury Fund statute, AS 23.30.205. The Alaska Workers’ Compensation Board (Board) denied Alaska International Constructors’ request for reimbursement from the fund for benefits it pays to an injured…”
Employers Com. Union Ins. Grp. v. Christ, 513 P.2d 1090 (Alaska 1973). “Our Workmen’s Compensation Law, AS 23.30.205, provides a system of reimbursement to the employer of a handicapped person, where that person receives a second injury.”
— Alaska Stat. § 23.30.205(d) — 1 case
Veco Alaska, Inc. v. State, Dep't of Labor, Div. of Workers' Comp., Second Injury Fund, 189 P.3d 983 (Alaska 2008). “[22] The issue presented in this appeal is whether VECO's knowledge that Huizenga has a permanent impairment as defined in AS 23.30.205 can fairly and reasonably be inferred from the written record VECO presented to the Second Injury Fund and the Board.”
— Alaska Stat. § 23.30.205(d)(1) — 2 cases
Veco Alaska, Inc. v. State, Dep't of Labor, Div. of Workers' Comp., Second Injury Fund, 189 P.3d 983 (Alaska 2008). “[22] The issue presented in this appeal is whether VECO's knowledge that Huizenga has a permanent impairment as defined in AS 23.30.205 can fairly and reasonably be inferred from the written record VECO presented to the Second Injury Fund and the Board.”
Sea-Land Servs. v. Second Injury Fund, 737 P.2d 793 (Alaska 1987). “AS 23.30.205(a). An employer otherwise entitled to reimbursement from the Fund must establish by a written record that it had knowledge of the employee's preexisting impairment before the subsequent injury and retained the employee despite such knowledge.”
— Alaska Stat. § 23.30.205(d)(1)(Z) — 1 case
Sea-Land Servs. v. Second Injury Fund, 737 P.2d 793 (Alaska 1987). “AS 23.30.205(a). An employer otherwise entitled to reimbursement from the Fund must establish by a written record that it had knowledge of the employee's preexisting impairment before the subsequent injury and retained the employee despite such knowledge.”
— Alaska Stat. § 23.30.205(d)(2) — 2 cases
Veco Alaska, Inc. v. State, Dep't of Labor, Div. of Workers' Comp., Second Injury Fund, 189 P.3d 983 (Alaska 2008). “[22] The issue presented in this appeal is whether VECO's knowledge that Huizenga has a permanent impairment as defined in AS 23.30.205 can fairly and reasonably be inferred from the written record VECO presented to the Second Injury Fund and the Board.”
Second Injury Fund v. Arctic Bowl, 928 P.2d 590 (Alaska 1996). “The Board found that DeLong had experienced a second work-related injury on July 19, 1988, that Arctic Bowl had met the “combined effects” test of AS 23.30.205(a), and that the nature of the injury was discovered by Arctic Bowl on July 31,1991.”
Barrington v. Alaska Commc'ns Sys. Grp., Inc., 198 P.3d 1122 (Alaska 2009). “After claims have been joined together, (1) a pleading or documentary evidence filed by a party must list the master case number first and then all the other case numbers; (2) a compensation report, controversion notice, or a notice under AS 23.30.205(f) must list only the case…”
Second Injury Fund v. Arctic Bowl, 928 P.2d 590 (Alaska 1996). “The Board found that DeLong had experienced a second work-related injury on July 19, 1988, that Arctic Bowl had met the “combined effects” test of AS 23.30.205(a), and that the nature of the injury was discovered by Arctic Bowl on July 31,1991.”
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.