Opinion ID: 2607386
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: two year limitations period

Text: The statute of limitations in the Alaska Workers' Compensation Act allows disabled workers two years from when they have knowledge of the nature of [their] disability and its relation to [their] employment to file a claim. AS 23.30.105(a). Bateman was fully aware in 1984 that his injury was debilitating when present and could only be prevented by avoiding contact with the woods. However, Bateman did not learn that his allergy was not controllable until March 1989. This appeal thus turns on one issue: does a disabled worker know the nature of the disability and the relationship of the disability to the worker's employment when the worker reasonably but erroneously believes the injury is controllable by medication? We conclude that the answer is no. The Alaska Workers' Compensation Act defines disability as incapacity because of injury to earn the wages which the employee was receiving at the time of injury in the same or any other employment. AS 23.30.265(10). The inquiry into disability focuses on the loss of earning capacity and not on the actual medical impairment. Cortay v. Silver Bay Logging, 787 P.2d 103, 105 (Alaska 1990). Thus it follows logically that one does not know the nature of one's disability and the relationship of the disability to one's employment until one knows of the disability's full effect on one's earning capacity. The mere awareness of the disability's full physical effects is not sufficient. ATIE contends that Bateman was disabled in 1984 because he collected temporary total disability and his condition had matured at that time. We are not persuaded, however, that Bateman had knowledge of the nature of his disability and its relationship to his employment before 1989. It was not until Bateman learned that he could not treat the allergy with medicine that he was fully aware of its economic impact. Until then he reasonably believed that he could control the condition so that his earning capacity was not affected. He accomplished this by a combination of medication and limited exposure to the woods. In fact, Bateman followed this routine, found his own employment and was able to work until the medication became ineffective. Bateman's belief that he could control his condition was reasonable. The recommendations Bateman received from the doctors and his counselors were far from clear. Bateman's doctors told him that working in the woods would aggravate his problem. They did not tell him that such exposure was untreatable. [9] McCarron was similarly ambiguous in his recommendations. It was not until Dr. Maling told Bateman that Bateman's course of action was life-threatening [10] that Bateman's belief became unreasonable.