Legal Opinion

DeNuptiis v. Unocal Corp.

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided January 31, 2003No. S-10098PublishedCited by 31 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

MATTHEWS, Justice.

The main question presented is whether the Workers’ Compensation Board erred in applying a clear and convincing standard of proof to an employer’s claim for reimbursement of benefits based on fraud. We conclude that it did. Alaska Statute 44.62.460(e) directs that the standard of proof in administrative hearings be by a preponderance of the evidence, unless applicable law specifies a different standard. As no statute or rule relating to reimbursement claims addresses the issue of what standard of proof is appropriate, the default standard of this section applies.

I.…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. Santosky v. KramerSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  3. Addington v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  4. Woodby v. Immigration & Naturalization ServiceSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  5. Chaunt v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1960

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by31 opinions

  1. Wetherhorn v. Alaska Psychiatric InstituteAlaska Supreme Court · 2007
  2. Shehata v. Salvation ArmyAlaska Supreme Court · 2010
  3. Government Employees Insurance Co. v. Graham-GonzalezAlaska Supreme Court · 2005
  4. Tauese v. State, Department of Labor & Industrial RelationsHawaii Supreme Court · 2006
  5. Alaska Public Interest Research Group v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 2007

26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API