Fluor Alaska, Inc. v. Mendoza
Alaska Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
Before RABINOWITZ, C. J., CONNOR, BURKE and MATTHEWS, JJ., and DIMOND, Senior Justice. RABINOWITZ, Chief Justice.
In this appeal, we are confronted with an issue of first impression in post-statehood Alaska, namely, the proper interpretation of AS 23.30.095(d). That statute, part of the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Act, provides:
If at any time during the period [of disability] the employee unreasonably refuses to submit to medical or surgical treatment, the [Alaska Workers’ Compensation] [B]oard may by order suspend the payment of further compensation while the refusal continues, and no…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Miller v. ITT Arctic ServicesAlaska Supreme Court · 1978
- Burgess Construction Co. v. LindleyAlaska Supreme Court · 1972
- Cate v. Perkins MacHine Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1960
- Thibodeau v. Etscovitz ChevroletSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1976
3Cited by8 opinions
- In re E.C.Supreme Court of Vermont · 2010
- Bignell v. Wise Mechanical ContractorsAlaska Supreme Court · 1982
- In Re ECSupreme Court of Vermont · 2010
- PHILLIP WEIDNER & ASSOCIATES, INC. v. HibdonAlaska Supreme Court · 1999
- Metcalf v. Felec ServicesAlaska Supreme Court · 1990
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.