Legal Opinion

Municipality of Anchorage v. Adamson

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided May 3, 2013No. 6780 S-14621/S-14622PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

CARPENETI, Justice.

I. INTRODUCTION

What standard should apply to stays on appeal of future medical benefits when the Alaska Workers' Compensation Board has ordered an employer to pay for medical treatment or benefits? In these two cases the Alaska Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission applied different standards to evaluate motions to stay future medical benefits, and the losing party in each case petitioned for review of the Commission's stay decision. We granted review to decide what standard applies to stays of future medical benefits. We hold that to stay future medical benefits,…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Tesoro Alaska Petroleum Co. v. Kenai Pipe Line Co.Alaska Supreme Court · 1987
  2. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. DeShongAlaska Supreme Court · 2003
  3. Marathon Oil Co. v. State, Department of Natural ResourcesAlaska Supreme Court · 2011
  4. L.D.G., Inc. v. BrownAlaska Supreme Court · 2009
  5. Grimm v. WagonerAlaska Supreme Court · 2003

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Adamson v. Municipality of AnchorageAlaska Supreme Court · 2014
  2. Shawn Murphy v. Fairbanks North Star BoroughAlaska Supreme Court · 2021
  3. Dupigny v. TysonSupreme Court of The Virgin Islands · 2017
  4. Gregory Kisling v. Paul Grosz, Paul Grosz v. Gregory KislingAlaska Supreme Court · 2025
  5. Traugott v. Arctec Alaska, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 2018

6 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