Opinion ID: 2461960
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Commission Had Authority To Stay The Board's Decision.

Text: Monzulla argues separately that the Commission was without jurisdiction to stay the Board's decision because the workers' compensation statute and the Commission's regulations only permit stays of compensation orders, which are a limited class of Board orders. Voorhees does not address this argument separately. The only provision of the Alaska Workers' Compensation Act related to stays by the Commission is AS 23.30.125(c), which states: If a compensation order is not in accordance with law or fact, the order may be suspended or set aside, in whole or in part, through proceedings in the commission brought by a party in interest against all other parties to the proceedings before the board. The payment of the amounts required by an award may not be stayed pending a final decision in the proceeding unless, upon application for a stay, the commission, on hearing, after not less than three days' notice to the parties in interest, allows the stay of payment in whole or in part, where the party filing the application would otherwise suffer irreparable damage. Continuing future periodic compensation payments may not be stayed without a showing by the appellant of irreparable damage and the existence of the probability of the merits of the appeal being decided adversely to the recipient of the compensation payments. The order of the commission allowing a stay must contain a specific finding, based upon evidence submitted to the commission and identified by reference to the evidence, that irreparable damage would result to the party applying for a stay and specifying the nature of the damage. Monzulla does not dispute that the legislature gave the Commission some power to stay Board decisions; he argues that because a compensation order refers only to a Board order denying a claim or making an award of compensation, [36] the statute permits the Commission to stay only compensation orders, not other Board decisions. Given the purposes of the legislation, we do not think that the legislature intended the Commission's power to issue stays to be confined to compensation orders. The statutory language does not expressly limit stays to compensation orders nor does it prohibit stays of other Board orders. The statute sets out the standards the Commission must apply when a party seeks to stay a monetary award from the Board. [37] Although [t]here is a presumption that the same words used twice in the same act have the same meaning, [38] the legislature appears not to have distinguished compensation orders from other decisions in the legislation establishing the Commission. Alaska Statute 23.30.127, which sets out deadlines for appeals and cross-appeals to the Commission, uses the term compensation order when referring to the time for filing an appeal [39] and decision when referring to the time for filing a cross-appeal. [40] In addition, without authority to stay Board decisions while review is pending, the Commission's discretionary review jurisdiction would be meaningless. If the Commission could not stay a Board order while it reviewed the order, issues could become moot while review was pending.