enforcement claim in Alaska

1991Anchorage Roofing Co. v. Gonzales, 507 P.2d 501, 504 (Alaska 1973).

1991Anchorage Roofing Co. v. Gonzales, 507 P.2d 501, 504 (Alaska 1973).

1990See, e.g., Burgess Const. Co. v. Smallwood, 623 P.2d 312, 316 (Alaska 1981) (“there must be some evidence that the claim arose out of, or in the course of, employment before the presumption arises”).

1984The broad inclusiveness of this language does not mean that the mere filing of a claim gives rise to the presumption of coverage, for, as was previously indicated, there must be some evidence that the claim arose out of, or in the course of, employment before the presumption arises. 623 P.2d at 316 . [4] Bonner testified both in his deposition and at the hearing that his symptoms worsened after January 1.

1987Delaney, 693 P.2d at 862 ; see AS 23.30.120(1) (“In a proceeding for the enforcement of a claim for compensation under this chapter it is presumed, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, that (1) the claim comes within the provisions of this chapter ...”). 5 .

1985In Delaney v. Alaska Airlines, 693 P.2d 859, 862 (Alaska 1985) we said in part: We have held that a disability is presumed to be compensable when a claimant has established a "preliminary link” between his disability and his employment. 3 .

1976Cos. v. Gomes, 544 P.2d 1013, 1017 (Alaska 1976); Anchorage Roofing Co., Inc. v. Gonzales, 507 P.2d 501, 504 (Alaska 1973); Beauchamp v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp., 477 P.2d 993, 997 (Alaska 1970); Thornton v. Alaska Workmen’s Compensation Board, 411 P.2d 209, 211 (Alaska 1966). .

1970Thornton v. Alaska Workmen’s Compensation Board, 411 P.2d 209 (Alaska 1966).

2017Even if 25 Cf. Song v. Song, 972 P.2d 589, 591 (Alaska 1999) (granting relief after moving party credibly testified she did not understand the settlement agreement when she signed it). 26 Hannah B. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc.

2014McGahuey v. Whitestone Logging, Inc., 262 P.3d 613, 620 (Alaska 2011). 15 . 813 P.2d 286, 292 (Alaska 1991). 16 .

2014McGahuey v. Whitestone Logging, Inc., 262 P.3d 613, 620 (Alaska 2011). 15 . 813 P.2d 286, 292 (Alaska 1991). 16 .

2007DeYonge v. NANA/Marriott, 1 P.3d 90, 94 (Alaska 2000); Tesoro Alaska Petroleum Co. v. Kenai *634 Pipe Line Co., 746 P.2d 896, 903 (Alaska 1987). 3 .

2007DeYonge v. NANA/Marriott, 1 P.3d 90, 94 (Alaska 2000); Tesoro Alaska Petroleum Co. v. Kenai *634 Pipe Line Co., 746 P.2d 896, 903 (Alaska 1987). 3 .

2006AS 23.30.120 (limiting scope of presumption to "a proceeding for the enforcement of a claim for compensation under this chapter"); Himschoot v. Shanley, 908 P.2d 1035, 1041 (Alaska 1996) (holding that presumption was inapplicable in case in which injured worker sued in tort); see also Alaska Pulp Corp. v. United Paperworkers Int'l Union, 791 P.2d 1008, 1011 (Alaska 1990) (characterizing statutory presumption as "pro-worker" and refusing to apply it to "facilitate proof of an employee status contrary to that asserted by the worker"). 7 .

2006Carlson v. Doyon Universal-Ogden Servs., 995 P.2d 224, 227 (Alaska 2000). 8 .

2006AS 23.30.120 (limiting scope of presumption to "a proceeding for the enforcement of a claim for compensation under this chapter"); Himschoot v. Shanley, 908 P.2d 1035, 1041 (Alaska 1996) (holding that presumption was inapplicable in case in which injured worker sued in tort); see also Alaska Pulp Corp. v. United Paperworkers Int'l Union, 791 P.2d 1008, 1011 (Alaska 1990) (characterizing statutory presumption as "pro-worker" and refusing to apply it to "facilitate proof of an employee status contrary to that asserted by the worker"). 7 .

2002Meek v. Unocal Corp., 914 P.2d 1276, 1279-80 (Alaska 1996). 25 .

2002I think unequivocally I tell patients that, that I don't necessarily think I need to see again, but that they're not cutting off their eligibility for the care for that injury. [3] AS 23.30.120(a)(1) provides: (a) In a proceeding for the enforcement of a claim for compensation under this chapter it is presumed, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, that (1) the claim comes within the provisions of this chapter[.] [4] See Tolbert v. Alascom, 973 P.2d 603, 611 (Alaska 1999). [5] 805 P.2d 976, 977 (Alaska 1991) (footnote omitted). [6] 836 P.2d 941, 942 (Alaska 1992). [7] The fol

2002See Tolbert v. Alascom, 973 P.2d 603, 611 (Alaska 1999). . 805 P.2d 976, 977 (Alaska 1991) (footnote omitted). . 836 P.2d 941, 942 (Alaska 1992). .

2002I think unequivocally I tell patients that, that I don't necessarily think I need to see again, but that they're not cutting off their eligibility for the care for that injury. [3] AS 23.30.120(a)(1) provides: (a) In a proceeding for the enforcement of a claim for compensation under this chapter it is presumed, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, that (1) the claim comes within the provisions of this chapter[.] [4] See Tolbert v. Alascom, 973 P.2d 603, 611 (Alaska 1999). [5] 805 P.2d 976, 977 (Alaska 1991) (footnote omitted). [6] 836 P.2d 941, 942 (Alaska 1992). [7] The fol

2002See Tolbert v. Alascom, 973 P.2d 603, 611 (Alaska 1999). . 805 P.2d 976, 977 (Alaska 1991) (footnote omitted). . 836 P.2d 941, 942 (Alaska 1992). .

2002I think unequivocally I tell patients that, that I don't necessarily think I need to see again, but that they're not cutting off their eligibility for the care for that injury. [3] AS 23.30.120(a)(1) provides: (a) In a proceeding for the enforcement of a claim for compensation under this chapter it is presumed, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, that (1) the claim comes within the provisions of this chapter[.] [4] See Tolbert v. Alascom, 973 P.2d 603, 611 (Alaska 1999). [5] 805 P.2d 976, 977 (Alaska 1991) (footnote omitted). [6] 836 P.2d 941, 942 (Alaska 1992). [7] The fol

2002See Tolbert v. Alascom, 973 P.2d 603, 611 (Alaska 1999). . 805 P.2d 976, 977 (Alaska 1991) (footnote omitted). . 836 P.2d 941, 942 (Alaska 1992). .

1994Wien Air Alaska v. Kramer, 807 P.2d 471, 473-74 (Alaska 1991).

1987“In reviewing a determination of the [Board], the applicable standard of review is ... the substantial evidence test." Miller v. ITT Arctic Servs., 577 P.2d 1044, 1049 (Alaska 1978) (footnote omitted).

1987Cf. Loof v. Sanders, 686 P.2d 1205, 1209 (Alaska 1984) (to prevail on appeal the appellant "must demonstrate that the error, if any, had ‘substantial influence’ on the outcome of the case”); State v. Alaska Continental Development, 630 P.2d 977 , 985 n. 9 (Alaska 1980) (a legal error not based on a constitutional claim is harmless if the factfinder is not substantially swayed or affected by the error); Martinez v. Bullock, 535 P.2d 1200, 1206-07 (Alaska 1975) (an error which does not affect substantial rights is harmless); see also Alaska R.Civ.P. 61. 6 .

1987Cf. Loof v. Sanders, 686 P.2d 1205, 1209 (Alaska 1984) (to prevail on appeal the appellant "must demonstrate that the error, if any, had ‘substantial influence’ on the outcome of the case”); State v. Alaska Continental Development, 630 P.2d 977 , 985 n. 9 (Alaska 1980) (a legal error not based on a constitutional claim is harmless if the factfinder is not substantially swayed or affected by the error); Martinez v. Bullock, 535 P.2d 1200, 1206-07 (Alaska 1975) (an error which does not affect substantial rights is harmless); see also Alaska R.Civ.P. 61. 6 .