Opinion ID: 1156976
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Did the Board Err by Failing to Apply the Presumption of Compensability?

Text: The superior court held that the Board failed to discuss the statutory presumption and the burden of the employer producing substantial evidence that the prior on the job accidents were [not] the cause of the employee's inability to return to work. The superior court therefore remanded the issue of the medical causation of the employee's current disability back to the Board. Kodiak argues that the statutory presumption in AS 23.30.120 applies only to work-relatedness. Adams contends that the presumption by its plain terms extends beyond work-relatedness and was applied to medical causation in Rogers Electric Co. v. Kouba, 603 P.2d 909 (Alaska 1979). Alaska Statute 23.30.120(1) provides for a statutory presumption of workers' compensation coverage: Presumptions: 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 this chapter. In Kouba, the employer contended that the employee's back disability was the result of an independent congenital condition and not the result of the work accident. The court stated: We note first that this case falls within the scope of the statutory presumption of workers' compensation coverage, A.S. 23.30.120(1)... . It was therefore necessary for Rogers to show by substantial evidence that Kouba's continuing back problems did not result from the Prudhoe Bay accidents. We agree with the Superior Court that Rogers did not make the necessary showing. Kouba, 603 P.2d at 911 (footnote omitted). Consequently, as to a presently disabling condition, the court noted that the presumption applied so as to require the employer to present substantial evidence that the present back disability was not the result of the work injury. We similarly conclude that the presumption applies here, requiring the employer to introduce substantial evidence that the work-related back injury was not the source of Adams' disability.