Opinion ID: 1123442
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Lump-sum PPI Benefits Were Paid on Time

Text: This issue involves two questions: the method of measuring the time for payment, and the date the time period started running.
The parties dispute whether the lump-sum payment was due on the next scheduled TTD payment date (August 14, Sumner's position), or due within twenty-one days of notice of the PPI rating under AS 23.30.155 (August 21, ANIC's position). Alaska statutes and cases do not provide a due date for PPI lump-sum payments. PPI payment rules are delineated in AS 23.30.190, and no statutory time frame is clearly specified. [7] Alaska Statute 23.30.155(b) and (e), providing for installment payments within fourteen days and penalties if the payment is over seven days late, have not been applied by this court to a case involving PPI payments. Under 8 AAC 45.063(a), time periods under the Alaska Workers' Compensation Act do not include the day of the event. An examination of workers' compensation law prior to the 1988 amendments provides one perspective on this issue. Section 190, providing for permanent partial disability payments, was markedly different than the present version. Depending on the injury, compensation was provided for a certain number of weeks at eighty percent of wages. Former AS 23.30.190(a)(1) (amended 1988). The relevant provisions of section 155, providing for payment of compensation, were largely the same. Section 155(a) stated, Compensation under this chapter shall be paid periodically. Section 155(b) provided for payment of the first installment by the fourteenth day after knowledge of the injury or death. Later compensation installments were due every fourteenth day. Therefore, PPD payments were made in installments, and the fourteen day period with the seven day penalty period applied. See Fairbanks N. Star Borough Sch. Dist. v. Crider, 736 P.2d 770, 772, 774-75 (Alaska 1987) (case under former statutory scheme noting that PPD payments in biweekly installments are the norm). Therefore, there is a historical basis for applying the section 155 time periods to the current act. Quite possibly the legislature simplified section 190 without considering the payment ramifications, or whether section 155 still applies to PPI payments. Applying the next TTD payment date as the PPI due date is undesireable from policy standpoint as it would result in a variable time period of eight to twenty-one days for PPI payment (the one to fourteen days until the next TTD payment plus the seven day penalty period). The Board noted this uncertainty in its June 8, 1992 decision, analogizing the resulting variable period to a game of craps. The Board's interpretation gives the employer adequate time to analyze a PPI rating, and establishes a consistent twenty-one day period for payment. There is a rational basis for the Board's decision. The decision comports with the historic workers' compensation framework and does not contradict any case or statute. Were we to apply our independent judgment, we would arrive at the same conclusion. Therefore, we affirm that decision.
Sumner also disputes the date of notice of the PPI rating, arguing that notice was given to ANIC on July 29, rather than July 31 as determined by the Board. This issue has been waived because it was raised first in the reply brief. Alaska R.App.P. 212(c)(3) (The reply brief may raise no contentions not previously raised in either the appellant's or appellee's briefs.); Conam Alaska v. Bell Lavalin, Inc., 842 P.2d 148, 158 (Alaska 1992). If Sumner intended to argue that the Board's finding was clearly erroneous, or not supported by substantial evidence, he should have done so in his points on appeal, or at least in his opening brief.