Opinion ID: 1423917
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Transportation Costs

Text: Alcan argues that the superior court erred when it reversed the Board and ordered reimbursement for the transportation costs that Bringmann incurred in obtaining medical treatment in California. [2] Alaska Statute 23.30.095(a) requires employers to furnish medical and surgical treatment to an employee injured on the job for two years after injury. Relying on the language of AS 23.30.265(20), which provides that `medical and related benefits' includes ... transportation charges to the nearest point where adequate medical facilities are available, Alcan asserts that Bringmann failed to demonstrate that adequate treatment was not available in Alaska. Bringmann responds that only Dr. Kerns considered and recommended the surgery that he successfully performed. He also argues that the Board failed to apply the presumption of compensability under AS 23.30.120(a)(1). The Board placed the burden of proof on Bringmann to show that the location of the medical facility he chose was the nearest adequate medical facility. The Board further stated that [e]ven if the statutory presumption found [in] AS 23.30.120 was stretched beyond logic and reason to include an issue such as this, Defendants have produced substantial evidence (via Dr. Nolan) to rebut the presumption. The Board found that Dr. Nolan or other skilled orthopedic surgeons could have performed the surgery and therefore adequate medical facilities were available in Anchorage. The superior court reversed the Board, reasoning: the board did not find that Dr. Nolan gave consideration to this particular combination of surgical procedures as an alternative to fusion, and the Board did not find that Dr. Nolan provided Bringmann with this option... . ... What is crucial is that Dr. Kerns' [sic] proposed a new standard for what is adequate in treating a crushed foot which Bringmann could not find in Anchorage, Honolulu or Seattle. The legislature amended Alaska Statutes 23.30.095(a) in 1988, deleting the requirement that the injured employee first designate a licensed physician in the state. This amendment shows that the legislature intended to drop the parochial view that adequate treatment is always available in this state. At oral argument, Bringmann correctly relied on Olson v. AIC/Martin J.V., 818 P.2d 669, 675 (Alaska 1991), for the proposition that the presumption of compensability applies to continuing medical care. Bringmann's transportation expenses to California for treatment were clearly part of his ongoing medical care. Thus we hold that the Board erred in failing to apply the presumption of compensability to Bringmann's transportation costs. Alcan concedes that an employee is entitled to out of state medical treatment when equally beneficial treatment is not available in the employee's home state. See 2 A. Larson, The Law of Workmen's Compensation § 61.13(b)(2) (1989). Alcan relies on Braewood Convalescent Hospital v. Worker's Compensation Appeals Board, 34 Cal.3d 159, 193 Cal. Rptr. 157, 666 P.2d 14 (1983), which held that the employer must present evidence demonstrating the availability of a similar, or equally effective program in a more limited geographic area closer to [the injured worker's] domicile. Id. 193 Cal. Rptr. at 163, 666 P.2d at 20. Alcan argues that it demonstrated the availability of a similar, or equally effective program in Alaska. Bringmann responds that although Dr. Nolan was capable of performing the individual procedures, Dr. Nolan did not actually consider and recommend to him the combination of procedures required to treat his injury. We agree with Bringmann that the combination of procedures performed by Dr. Kerns was not available in Alaska. [3] Dr. Nolan did not provide Bringmann with an alternative to a triple arthrodesis. There is no evidence to suggest that Dr. Nolan considered the combination of the six procedures that Dr. Kerns performed on Bringmann, although he testified he could have performed each of the procedures individually. Furthermore, Alcan presented no evidence that any other doctor in Alaska considered or recommended that combination of surgical procedures. Similarly, the doctors Bringmann consulted in Hawaii and Washington did not consider or recommend that combination of surgical procedures. If a doctor does not provide an option to the patient, regardless of the doctor's skill level, the option is unavailable to that patient. Alcan has failed to demonstrate that adequate medical facilities were available within the state. Bringmann's evidence, together with the unrebutted presumption, satisfied his burden of proof that adequate medical treatment was unavailable in Alaska. Therefore, we affirm the superior court's decision requiring reimbursement by Alcan of Bringmann's transportation expenses incurred in obtaining medical treatment in Huntington Beach, California.