Court Opinion

ID: 9604054
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:13:37.713928+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:18.441867
License: Public Domain

ERWIN, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent.
I disagree with the conclusion of the majority that the evidence presented on behalf of the employer was not substantial evidence which would cause the presumption to disappear.
The definition of substantial evidence found in Anchorage Roofing Co., Inc. v. Gonzales, 507 P.2d 501, 503 (Alaska 1973), is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”
To me the testimony by Officer Rice concerning the exhaustive investigation into the murder by the Anchorage Police Department and his expert opinion that it was a non-job related, professional-contract killing can only be described as evidence adequate to support a conclusion.
While I have never been able to explain a finding by an appellate court stating that reasonable minds cannot differ on a particular question when a reasonable judge dissents as to that view, such is the case herein. I would reach the opposite conclusion and would reverse the decision of the superior court and remand the case to them with instructions to order the Workmen’s Compensation Board to dismiss the claim.1

. The majority notation of inordinate delay herein is an understatement which underscores the need for the revamping of procedures in the ■ Superior Court for the handling of administrative appeals. The delay of almost one year in scheduling oral argument caused the parties to ultimately stipulate to the waiver of argument in order to obtain a decision on the appeal. Appellate Rule 45 should be changed to require oral argument after 30 days of the receipt of the legal briefs in the case. Such delays can only cause undue hardships to litigants and justified criticism to the court.