Opinion ID: 1275934
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Timeliness of the Application for Modification

Text: As a preliminary matter, we address Alaska Constructors's contention that Hodges's application for adjustment failed to meet the statutory and regulatory requirements governing modification of Board orders. First, Alaska Constructors argues that Hodges's application for adjustment was not filed within the one-year time limit prescribed by AS 23.30.130. [3] It complains that the Board only decided to treat Hodges's application for adjustment as a petition for modification after more than a year passed from the decision in Hodges III. The record indicates, however, that Hodges filed an application for adjustment of claim on June 8, 1992, less than one year after the decision in Hodges III was issued on August 23, 1991. It is this date that controls under AS 23.30.130. [4] Moreover, the Board acts within its jurisdiction with respect to modification of the original claim when it decides whether the limitations period has run. Hulsey v. Johnson & Holen, 814 P.2d 327, 328 (Alaska 1991). Second, Alaska Constructors contends that the application for adjustment is not the functional equivalent of a petition for modification. The Board's action was appropriate, however, because it has discretion to review an award of compensation [u]pon its own initiative, or upon the application of any party in interest. AS 23.30.130(a). We have upheld similar Board action in the past. See Hulsey, 814 P.2d at 328 (concluding Board correctly treated petition to reopen claims as petition for modification); see also Metcalf v. Felec Servs., 784 P.2d 1386, 1387 (Alaska 1990) (noting that Board treated request for reconsideration as petition to modify award).