Opinion ID: 1275934
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Reimbursement for Hodges's Therapeutic Hot Tub and Bed

Text: In Hodges IV, the Board found Hodges's request for the provision of a therapeutic bed and hot tub to be compensable. It required Hodges to submit records detailing his costs and evidence that he had submitted those costs to his employer. After reviewing that evidence, and that of the employer in rebuttal, the Board in Hodges V ruled that Hodges's purchases were excessive and required Alaska Constructors to pay only a reasonable, specified portion of the costs. Hodges appeals.
Hodges submitted bills totaling approximately $15,000 for the purchase and installation of a gazebo-covered, outdoor hot tub. [8] Alaska Constructors proffered evidence that an alternative bathtub whirlpool could have been installed in Hodges's home for a total cost of only $4,640. After examining the testimony of Joyce Heisler, a hot tub vendor, and Dr. D.L. Hill, the chiropractor who prescribed the hot tub, the Board ruled that reimbursement for the hot tub should be limited to $4,640. The Board concluded: We recognize Ms. Heisler and Dr. Hill both believe the employee should have a deep tub with water jets placed for adjustment to a number of body parts. We find, however, that both witnesses made this determination based on the employee's entire back problems, particularly his upper back. We have already found that the employee's upper back problems are not compensable under this claim. Therefore, we find any hot tub ordered under this claim, would not need to treat the upper back. Since the tub costing $4,640.00 adequately treats the lower back, we find such a tub reasonable. Hodges argues that he should have been fully reimbursed for the hot tub he purchased. Alaska Constructors maintains that the Board correctly decided the issue. The Board's decision was supported by substantial evidence. In his deposition, Dr. Hill commented on Hodges's purchase of the outdoor hot tub and whether it conformed to the prescription he had written for him: It is more than I had in mind, to be honest with you. When I wrote the prescription, I didn't envision ... the patient building a gazebo and spending 14,000. [9] Furthermore, the record supports the Board's finding that the experts' testimony was based upon the faulty assumption that Hodges's upper back treatment was compensable. Dr. Hill remarked that the requirements of a beneficial hot tub included that he could immerse up to his neck in it. Heisler commented that the alternative proposed by Alaska Constructors might not be as comfortable because Hodges would not receive a benefit to all parts of his body, including the upper neck. The Board is authorized to choose between conflicting medical testimony and reports. The function of the courts is not to reweigh the evidence or to choose between competing inferences, but only to determine whether substantial evidence exists. See Interior Paint Co., 522 P.2d at 169-70. There is substantial evidence supporting the inferences drawn by the Board with regard to the extravagance of Hodges's purchase. Therefore, we conclude that the Board's determination of this issue was not in error.
Hodges spent $2,950 on a king-size therapeutic bed. He contended that he needed that size because he was married at the time of his purchase. He argues that the king-size bed was the only size with independent adjustments for the two sides. Alaska Constructors contends that for $1,000 less, Hodges could have purchased a smaller bed that would have been adequate for his medical needs. The Board relied on Dr. Hill's comment that size is not that important to the bed's therapeutic effect, and required Alaska Constructors to reimburse Hodges the cost of a queen-size therapeutic bed of similar quality. Hill's testimony constitutes substantial evidence in support of the Board's decision. We therefore conclude that the Board did not err in finding that a queen-size therapeutic bed would adequately serve Hodges's medical needs.