Opinion ID: 1404333
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The application of the presumption

Text: AS 23.30.120 establishes a presumption of compensability, which places the burden of producing evidence on the employer. [6] The Board determined that the presumption of compensability provided for in AS 23.30.120 does not apply to the going and coming rule. However, we have held that the presumption of AS 23.30.120 places a burden on the employer to go forward with evidence on the issue of whether the injury arises outside or within the scope of employment. Anchorage Roofing Co., Inc. v. Gonzales, 507 P.2d 501, 504 (Alaska 1973). The issue in Anchorage Roofing was whether injuries sustained on a dual purpose trip, for business and for pleasure, were compensable. There we held that the claimant was entitled to the presumption on the evidentiary issues involved in that determination. Id. at 505. Here, the issue before the Board was whether Sokolowski's injury arose out of her employment. To resolve the question of whether the special hazard exception applies to Sokolowski, the Board must determine whether she was on a usual route to work at the time of the accident, whether her employment was a cause in fact of the injury, and whether the hazard she undertook was quantitatively greater than risks taken by the general public. Each prong of this test contains evidentiary questions, and Sokolowski is entitled to the presumption of compensability as to each of those questions. [7] The Board also determined that even if the presumption applied to Sokolowski, Golden Lion had overcome the presumption by proving that the injury occurred off Employer's premises and before Employee began working. This reasoning is erroneous because it amounts to a conclusion that the presumption does not apply to the special hazard exception. It is obvious that an injury caused by a special hazard must necessarily occur off the premises and during non-working hours.