Opinion ID: 2567570
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: alaska national's cross-appeal

Text: Alaska National cross-appeals the superior court's order remanding Seybert's case to the board while the superior court appeal was pending so the board could decide Seybert's claims on the issue of a SIME as it relates to the settlement agreement. The superior court stayed the appeal during the remand to the board. Alaska National contends that remanding the case while the appeal was pending violates principles of claim splitting or res judicata and that the superior court therefore abused its discretion in remanding the case. Seybert counters that a remand to the board was within the power of the superior court under the appellate rules, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act, and that even if the superior court erred by remanding, the error was harmless. Alaska National's claim that res judicata barred the superior court from remanding Seybert's case to the board fails because all of the proceedings were part of the same action. Although res judicata applies to workers' compensation proceedings, the doctrine is not applied as rigidly in administrative proceedings as it is in judicial proceedings. [76] Res judicata applies to subsequent lawsuits to bar relitigation of issues that could have been raised in a prior lawsuit. [77] Because the remand in Seybert's case was in the middle of the appeal of the decision, it was not a subsequent lawsuit. The cases on which Alaska National relies deal with litigation that ended in a final judgment, followed by a second lawsuit or administrative action based on the same set of facts as the first litigation. [78] None of the cases deals with a request for remand to an administrative agency during the course of an appeal to the superior court. Appellate Rule 520(c) gives an appellate court discretion to require such further proceedings to be had as may be just under the circumstances. [79] Alaska Statute 44.62.570 also gives the superior court the authority to supplement the agency record on appeal or remand a case to an administrative agency. [80] Here, Seybert presented some evidence at his first hearing that no one had informed him of his right to request an SIME, although he did not make an explicit legal argument related to the SIME issue at the first hearing. [81] In remanding the case to the board, the superior court ensured that both parties could present evidence to support their arguments and rebut the other party's arguments. It was within the power of the superior court to remand the case to the board for this purpose. Moreover, Alaska National does not explain how it was harmed by the remand. [82] The superior court did not abuse its discretion in remanding the case to the board for further proceedings while the appeal was pending.