Opinion ID: 2350840
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Nelson must pursue his claim before making a constitutional challenge to the statute.

Text: As explained, Nelson asks us to construe AS 23.30.055 as permitting him to bring a negligence action against Western Power and the Municipality. His argument has two parts: he argues that if AS 23.30.055 is construed as prohibiting his lawsuit, he will have no remedy at all for his injury and that this would violate his due process rights. Alternatively, he argues as a matter of statutory construction that the language of AS 23.30.055 does not bar a negligence action when a workers' compensation claim is controverted under AS 23.30.235. Both arguments rely on Nelson's lack of a workers' compensation remedy, yet he has never asked the Board or the superior court to determine whether his injury occurred in the course and scope of employment, [42] nor has he attempted to pursue a remedy before the Board. [43] Because the mere controversion of benefits did not establish that Nelson is not entitled to his workers' compensation remedies, his constitutional and statutory claims are not ripe. We have previously required a party to use available administrative processes before asserting a constitutional claim because successful pursuit of a claim through the administrative process could obviate the need for judicial review of the constitutional issues. [44] Likewise, we have held that [a] party raising a constitutional challenge to a statute bears the burden of demonstrating the constitutional violation. [45] These principles apply to Nelson's case. Nelson does not raise a facial constitutional challenge to the statute in this court: his constitutional argument hinges on the alleged lack of a remedy for his injury, not on a general lack of a remedy under all circumstances. [46] Because Nelson has not litigated his claim before either the Board or the court, he is unable to demonstrate that in fact he has no remedy. [47] Nelson is effectively asking us to address a hypothetical situation, but we decline to do so.