Opinion ID: 1175541
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ratliff's Assertions of Permanent Total Disability.

Text: Ratliff also argues that he is permanently totally disabled under AS 23.30.180 [6] and therefore his recovery should not be limited to the schedule. Wright Schuchart argues, however, that Ratliff did not raise this issue before the board and therefore should not be allowed to raise it here. Ratliff responds that the issue was included in his points on appeal. Ratliff argued to the superior court that he was totally disabled. The court rejected this argument, stating that the schedule was exclusive. [7] Ratliff did not raise the issue of whether he was totally disabled before the board and in fact expressly disavowed this as an issue. [8] Ratliff's Application for Adjustment of Claim indicates that the claim was being made for temporary total and permanent partial disability. At the hearing before the board, Ratliff's attorney stated, The permanent partial disability is what we are concerned with here. That's the only issue that we have before you. Ratliff's attorney indicated several times during the hearing that his goal was to try to get Ratliff's injury classified as an unscheduled permanent partial disability, so that Ratliff could be paid some percentage of his total temporary disability benefits. Wright Schuchart's attorney indicated that at the pre-hearing conference the parties agreed that the only issue to be addressed at the hearing was whether Ratliff's permanent partial disability was to be classified as scheduled or unscheduled. Ratliff's attorney agreed that he did not want to discuss any other issue. Given the foregoing, we reject Ratliff's argument that he is permanently totally disabled since this point was not raised below. AFFIRMED.