Court Opinion

ID: 9558033
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:01:55.13534+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:53.067282
License: Public Domain

RABINOWITZ, Justice
(concurring).
Although I am in agreement with the result reached by the opinion, my reasoning differs as to Part III. I construe the Alaska Workmen’s Compensation Act1 as mandating that the Board, when a claim for compensation is filed, determine the validity of the claim. The purpose of the Workmen’s Compensation Act is to provide a simple and expeditious remedy for the benefit of injured workmen.2 When a claim is controverted our Act directs the Board to investigate the claim, and upon application of an interested party to hold a hearing on it. The Act leaves no discretion in the Board to refuse to hold a hearing.3
Even if the Workmen’s Compensation Act did not clearly indicate that determination of the question of whether an injury arose out of employment was vested with the Board, considerations similar to those underlying the doctrine of primary jurisdiction lead me to the conclusion that in the factual context of this case the Board erred in not holding a hearing. Primary jurisdiction involves the question of when it is appropriate for courts to defer to administrative agencies.4 Here the question is whether it was appropriate, assuming legally permissible, for an administrative agency to defer to the courts. Alaska’s Workmen’s Compensation Act establishes a comprehensive system of compensation for employees as well as a Board to implement the system. A major objective *810of Alaska’s Workmen’s Compensation Act is to establish uniformity of interpretation and policy. In my view, this goal would be defeated if an employee’s initial choice of forum were to be decisive of the question of which tribunal will determine coverage under the Act.5

. Compare Somma v. United States, 283 F.2d 149 (3d Oir. 1960).

.AS 23.30.005 et seq. A® 23.30.020 provides in part that every contract of hire “ . shall be construed as an agreement on the part of the employer to pay and on the part of the employee to accept compensation in the manner provided in this chapter for all personal injuries sustained.”

. Gordon v. Burgess Const. Co., 425 P.2d 602 (Alaska 1967).

. AS 23.30.110(c) in part provides that when a claim for compensation is duly filed, “[t]he board shall make the investigation which it considers necessary in respect of the claim, and upon application of an interested party shall order a hearing on it.”

. See 3 K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 1901 at 2-3 (1958) ; G & A Contractors, Inc. v. Alaska Greenhouses, Inc., 517 P.2d 1379 (Alaska 1974).