Opinion ID: 2500482
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Fund's Appeal Was Timely.

Text: Alaska Statute 23.30.127(e), which governs appeal deadlines to the Commission when a party has requested reconsideration of a Board decision, provides: If a request for reconsideration of a board decision was timely filed with the office of the board, the notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the reconsideration decision is mailed to the parties or the date the request for reconsideration is considered denied in the absence of any action on the request, whichever is earlier. Because the Alaska Workers' Compensation Act has no express provision about reconsideration of Board decisions, the Alaska Administrative Procedure Act governs reconsideration requests. Alaska Statute 44.62.540(a) provides: The agency may order a reconsideration of all or part of the case on its own motion or on petition of a party. To be considered by the agency, a petition for reconsideration must be filed with the agency within 15 days after delivery or mailing of the decision. The power to order a reconsideration expires 30 days after the delivery or mailing of a decision to the respondent. If no action is taken on a petition within the time allowed for ordering reconsideration, the petition is considered denied. In this case, the Board noted that a party must request that the board reconsider a decision in accordance with AS 44.62.540 and 8 Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 45.050. 8 AAC 45.050 provides that an answer to a petition must be filed within 20 days after the date of service of the petition. [10] The parties here followed this regulation: The Fund petitioned for reconsideration on December 30, 2009, nine days after the Board issued its decision, and Tongass filed its answer to the petition on January 19, 2010, 20 days after the Fund filed its petition for reconsideration. On appeal, the Fund asserts that its appeal period was triggered on the day the hearing officer issued a written decision indicating that the petition had been denied. It argues that the deadline for an appeal would have been 30 days from whenever the Board issued its promised written decision on the petition. Tongass responds that the appeal was due no later than February 19, 2010, because the petition was denied by operation of statute on January 20. The Commission decided that the appeal was originally due on March 1, 2010, 30 days from January 29, 2010, which the Commission thought was the deadline for board action on the Fund's petition [for reconsideration]. Tongass asserts that the Commission erred in calculating the appeal deadline, but that the error was harmless because the Commission correctly found that the appeal was late. We disagree with both the Commission and Tongass. Because the Fund timely requested reconsideration, its appeal was due within 30 days after the reconsideration decision [was] mailed to the parties or the date the request for reconsideration [was] considered denied in the absence of any action on the request, whichever [was] earlier. [11] Pursuant to AS 44.62.540(a), a petition is considered denied [i]f no action is taken on a petition within the time allowed for ordering a reconsideration. In its decision, the Commission found that, in promising a decision by the end of January, the Board took action on the request for reconsideration within the 30-day timeframe required by AS 44.62.540(a) and AS 23.30.127(e). This determination by the Commission that the Board took action on the reconsideration requestwhich has not been challenged on appeal by either partyis critical. Alaska Statute 44.62.540(a) provides in part, If no action is taken on a petition within the time allowed for ordering reconsideration, the petition is considered denied. If action was taken on the petition, as the Commission found, [12] the Commission was not justified in concluding that the petition was denied by operation of statute. Because the petition could not be denied by operation of statute after the Board took action on it, the Fund's appeal was due within 30 days of the date the Board's decision about reconsideration was served on the parties. [13] In this case, the Board informed the parties on April 7, 2010, that it had not granted reconsideration, when it faxed them the prehearing conference summary. [14] The Fund filed its appeal the following day, well within the 30 days permitted by statute, so its appeal was timely. Because the Fund's appeal was timely, the Commission erred in dismissing the appeal. [15]
Assuming that the Board took action on the Fund's petition by promising a written decision, as the Commission found in an unchallenged finding, the petition could not be denied by operation of statute. Therefore, the Fund had 30 days to appeal from the date it received notice that reconsideration was denied. Because the Fund filed a timely appeal after the Board gave it written notice that reconsideration was denied, we REVERSE the Commission's decision dismissing the appeal. We REMAND the matter to the Commission to hear the appeal on the merits.