Opinion ID: 2539009
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Mat-Su's Direct Action Against Voss

Text: In December 2007 Mat-Su brought a separate lawsuit against Voss to recover the reasonable value of the medical services Mat-Su provided to Burkhead. Voss moved for summary judgment, arguing in part that Alaska's lien statute, AS 34.35.475, provided Mat-Su's exclusive remedy against Voss. Voss also contended that the alleged assignment was unenforceable as a matter of law because Burkhead was incompetent and under duress when she agreed to the assignment. Mat-Su moved for an Alaska Civil Rule 56(f) continuance that would have allowed Mat-Su an extra sixty days to file a complete opposition to Voss's summary judgment motion. Mat-Su argued that it needed the additional time to conduct depositions and further discovery to develop its position that the Consent: Assignment forms are valid and enforceable against Ms. Voss. Voss opposed Mat-Su's continuance motion, arguing that determining the validity of the assignments was utterly irrelevant to the primary issue: whether, as a matter of law, the lien enforcement procedure is Mat-Su's exclusive remedy. Mat-Su replied that the validity of the assignment was relevant because Voss had claimed in her summary judgment motion that the assignment was unenforceable. Superior Court Judge Kari Kristiansen held a hearing on Mat-Su's Rule 56(f) continuance motion in May 2008. Voss's attorney stated during the hearing that, for the purposes of deciding whether AS 34.35.475(b) provided Mat-Su's exclusive remedy, the court could assume for argument sake that the assignment that was signed by Ms. Burkhead was valid. The court asked Mat-Su's attorney whether further discovery was necessary to respond to Voss's exclusive remedy argument. Mat-Su's attorney responded: No, I don't need further discovery per se to respond to the exclusive remedy argument. The court then denied Mat-Su's motion for a continuance and ordered Mat-Su to respond to Voss's summary judgment motion within ten days. The court stated that it would grant Mat-Su's request to depose Burkhead but questioned the relevance of a deposition to Voss's motion for summary judgment on the exclusive remedy issue. Mat-Su filed a timely opposition to Voss's summary judgment motion. The court held a hearing on Voss's motion in August 2008. The court ultimately agreed with Voss that the lien enforcement procedure found in AS 34.35.475(b) was Mat-Su's exclusive remedy, and granted Voss's motion for summary judgment on August 12, 2008. The next day, Mat-Su filed a motion for summary judgment on the affirmative defenses Voss had raised in her answer. Voss filed a notice stating that she would not file an opposition because Mat-Su's summary judgment motion was moot. Judge Kristiansen entered final judgment for Voss on October 6, 2008, without ruling on Mat-Su's summary judgment motion.