RANDY S. DOUGAN, 
Employee, 
Applicant
v. 
AURORA ELECTRIC, INC,
Employer,
and 
EAGLE PACIFIC INSURANCE,
Insurer,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

FINAL
DECISION AND ORDER
AWCB Case No. 199624451
AWCB Decision No. 00-0019
Filed with AWCB Anchorage, Alaska
on February 2, 2000

We heard the employee’s multiple petitions in Anchorage, Alaska on October 21, 1999. The employee represented himself. Attorney Joseph Cooper represented the defendants. We closed the record at the conclusion of the hearing.

1. Is the employee entitled to penalties under AS 23.30.155(e) for late-paid time-loss compensation, medical benefits and PPI benefits?
2. Is the employee entitled to interest under 8 AAC 45.142 for late-paid time-loss compensation, medical benefits and PPI benefits?
3. Did the employer unfairly or frivolously controvert the employee’s claims under AS 23.30.155(d)&(o)?
4. Is the employee entitled to a compensation rate adjustment?
5. Is the employee entitled to a permanent partial impairment (PPI) rating by Dr. Schurig?
6. Should the Board refer allegations of misconduct to another authority?

Employee injured his lower back while working for the employer as an electrician on November 1, 1996. The employer paid TTD and temporary partial disability (TPD) benefits periodically from November 5, 1996 through January 8, 1997.¹The employee’s weekly compensation rate was calculated at $522.94 based upon gross weekly earnings of $783.08.² The employee’s gross weekly earnings were calculated under AS 23.30.220(4)(A)³using the thirteen weeks between July 27, 1996 and November 2, 1996.⁴ The employer submitted the employee’s time cards showing the employee received a raise shortly after his November 1, 1996 injury.⁵ The employee submitted an Alaska Department of Labor website page describing wages for electricians and electrical powerline work in 1996.

In a report dated January 8, 1997, the employee’s previous treating physician, Michael James, M.D., stated the employee would be returning to light work which was available to him. Benefits were suspended on January 9, 1997 based upon the employee’s return to work with the employer.⁶ Thereafter, in a February 19, 1997 report, Dr. James noted the employee had been off work for the previous month, as there was no light duty work available to him. However, on that date, Dr. James released the employee to work as an electrician without limitation.⁷ As a result, TTD was paid from January 31, 1997 until February 19, 1997 and then suspended again on February 20, 1997.

Thereafter, TTD benefits were paid for the period between February 20, 1997 and April 20, 1997, and penalties were paid for the period between February 20, 1997 and April 6, 1997.⁸ On April 21, 1997, Dr. James determined the employee was medically stable and could return to medium work, and the employer suspended benefits.⁹The employee alleged in a letter dated March 29, 1999 that he notified Eagle Pacific Insurance Co. ("insurer") on April 22, 1997 of a 5% PPI rating by Dr. James. On April 29, 1997, Dr. James reported the employee had a PPI rating of 5%.¹⁰ The employer paid the employee PPI benefits in a lump sum on May 13, 1997.

In May of 1997, the employee stopped treating with Dr. James and began treatment with Samuel H. Schurig, D.O. Dr. Schurig noted on June 13, 1997 that the employee was medically stable. However, in a physician’s report dated June 24, 1997, Dr. Schurig found the employee was not medically stable but could return to light duty work, if available. Moreover, in a report dated September 29, 1997, Dr. Schurig stated the employee was still showing improvement and continued to be medically unstable.¹¹

On June 20, 1997, employer medical evaluation (EME) physician, Lee B. Silver, M.D., examined and evaluated the employee. Dr. Silver concluded the employee had attained medical stability, could return to his job as an electrician with no restrictions and had a 0% PPI rating. Dr. Silver also found the employee required no further formal medical treatment.¹² On July 11, 1997, the employer controverted all benefits on the basis of the April 29, 1997 report by Dr. James and the June 24, 1997 report by Dr. Silver.

On September 2, 1997, the employee filed an Application for Adjustment of Claim, requesting TTD from April 21, 1997 and continuing, penalties, interest, medical costs and transportation costs. The employee also alleged the employer unfairly or frivolously controverted his claims. The employer denied the employee’s claims in its Answer dated September 19, 1997.

On January 23, 1998, Douglas G. Smith, M.D. performed a second independent medical evaluation (SIME). In a report dated February 5, 1998, Dr. Smith determined that while the 45-day rule would indicate a medical stability date of mid-June 1997, the employee showed objective improvement until November 1997 while treating with Dr. Schurig. Dr. Smith found this justified an approximate medical stability date of November 1, 1997.

In a letter to the employee dated March 4, 1998, adjuster Shannon Butler agreed Dr. Smith’s report supported some period of disability. However, Ms. Butler indicated she would need to investigate the employee’s employment activities between April 21, 1997 and November 5, 1997 before considering payment. Ms. Butler forwarded employment releases to the employee.¹³The employer controverted TTD and TPD benefits pending a response to an informal discovery request for employment activity since April 21, 1996 (presumably this was a typographical error and was meant to indicate April 21, 1997). At a prehearing conference on April 3, 1998, Ms. Butler indicated the insurer would pay the requested TTD and TPD, once she verifies those payments are due from the requested employment discovery. Ms. Butler also indicated the insurer would pay any medical bills for treatment prior to the SIME report. Ms. Butler further stated no penalties were due, as controversions were timely filed. At the prehearing, the employee signed releases for employment information.¹⁴

Thereafter, on May 1, 1998, the employer paid TTD benefits for the period from May 16, 1997 to November 4, 1997, along with interest due. However, TPD remained outstanding pending additional wage documentation.¹⁵ After the employee provided further wage documentation, the employer paid TPD for the period from January 9, 1997 through January 31, 1997.¹⁶

At the hearing, Ms. Butler testified the insurer’s bill reviewer returned some of Dr. Schurig’s bills unpaid because they were lacking information. According to Ms. Butler, Dr. Schurig’s office then resubmitted the bills with the additional information on June 11, 1998. Ms. Butler testified the medical bills in question were timely paid once resubmitted. In his May 29, 1999 letter to the Board, the employee stated Dr. Schurig did not receive some payments until June 28, 1998. Employer’s payment schedule shows Dr. Schurig’s bills paid by June 23, 1998.¹⁷

Thereafter, the Board received a petition from the employee on November 17, 1998, requesting TTD from April 21, 1997 through May 16, 1997, penalties and interest and a compensation rate adjustment. On December 7, 1998, the employer accepted and paid TTD for the period between April 21, 1997 and May 15, 1997 with interest and paid interest and penalties on TPD payments between January 9, 1997 and January 31, 1997.¹⁸ On April 19, 1999, the employer paid a penalty for the April 7, 1997 through April 16, 1997 TTD payments.¹⁹

In a petition dated April 1, 1997, the employee asserted several allegations of misconduct on the part of the employer and the insurer and their handling of the employee’s claim. In addition, the employee requested a PPI rating by Dr. Schurig, a compensation rate adjustment, and penalties and interest on TTD, PPI and medical benefits. The employee further alleged unfair or frivolous controversion under AS 23.30.155(o) and posed several questions to the Board regarding his claim.²⁰

The employee has filed several petitions alleging misconduct on the part of the employer, violations of Alaska Workers’ Compensation Act, as well as civil and criminal causes of action.²¹ A hearing was held on these matters on April 28, 1999 to determine whether the Board has jurisdiction to adjudicate civil and criminal actions based on tort claims, alleged violations of constitutional law, and alleged violations of AS 23.30.250(a), AS 23.30.247 and AS 23.30.095(i). We incorporate by reference Dougan v. Aurora Electric Inc., AWCB Decision No. 99-0113 (May 14, 1999), (Dougan I). In Dougan I, the Board determined it did not have the authority to adjudicate civil or criminal actions. The Board further concluded its authority in criminal matters was limited (at most) to referring such issues to the appropriate authorities if a criminal violation become apparent during the course of proceedings.

At a prehearing conference on May 24, 1999, the parties determined the issues yet to be resolved. Several substantive issues were restated (i.e., penalties and interest on TTD, PPI and medical benefits, compensation rate adjustment and allegations of unfair or frivolous controversion), as well as the issues the employee raised in his April 1, 1999 petition. The employee was encouraged at the prehearing to only proceed at hearing with issues related to his claims.

In petitions dated May 24, 1999 and September 30, 1999, the employee requested the Board refer to the proper authorities the alleged civil and criminal violations previously determined to be outside the Board’s jurisdiction in Dougan I. At the hearing, the employee submitted as Exhibit "B" a binder containing previously submitted petitions and associated documents. The employee testified to various alleged acts of misconduct on the part of the employer at the hearing and in reference to Exhibit "B". The alleged acts of are paraphrased as follows:

1. The employer failed to include two reports by Dr. Schurig (dated 5/27/97 and 6/24/97) in the SIME binder, despite signing an affidavit that the binder contained all medical records in the employer’s possession;
2. The employer "inserted matter" into copies of the employee’s medical records by circling two portions of the record and then forwarding those copies to the SIME physician;
3. The employer failed to controvert benefits on board prescribed forms. Further, the controversion notices submitted to the employee by the employer did not contain information about his rights;
4. The employer submitted a false and misleading job description to the SIME physician;
5. The employer submitted other false and misleading statements related to the payment of compensation;
6. The employer received employment records from the State of Alaska beyond the scope of the release signed by the employee;
7. The employer shuffled documents in order to make discovery difficult;
8. The employer failed to forward a complete copy of its file to the Division of Insurance; and
9. The employer advised Dr. James’ medical assistant of employee’s "apparent inebriation" on his last day of work.

At the hearing, adjuster Shannon Butler testified that the 5/27/97 and 6/24/97 reports by Dr. Schurig were initially omitted from the SIME binder. However, Butler testified this was not intentional, but merely a clerical copying error. Ultimately, these pages were added to the binder before the SIME.

Ms. Butler further testified the employee was sent a standard, template version of controversion notices, which used to be a two-page document, and is now a single page. Ms. Butler testified she investigated the above incidents and found no evidence of wrongdoing, only clerical oversight. Ms. Butler also testified it was her practice when receiving reports to circle portions of her copy for her own internal use. Butler explained she did not alter any original medical records. Ms. Butler further testified that the insurer informed a medical provider about employee’s intoxication as reported to the insurer by the employer. Ms. Butler said this was necessary because of concern the employee was suffering from medication side effects. According to Ms. Butler, there was no intent to harm Mr. Dougan. Finally, Ms. Butler testified the insurer supplied a copy of their file to the Division of Insurance, and any missed pages resulted from clerical error. Finally, at the hearing, the employer submitted as Exhibit "A" a copy of the discovery it provided to the employee for the Board’s review.

At the hearing and in a letter to the Board dated March 29, 1999, the employee argued penalties should be awarded on TTD benefits for the period from May 16, 1997 through November 5, 1997. The employee asserted these payments were not paid until May 1, 1998, 29 days after all of the requirements for payment were met on April 3, 1998. The employee also argued penalties should be awarded on TTD for the period between April 21, 1997 and May 16, 1997 because payment was not made until December 7, 1998, though the requirements for payment were met on April 3, 1998.

The employee asserted he is entitled to penalties and interest on his PPI benefits because he notified the insurer of the PPI rating by Dr. James in person on April 22, 1997, and the employer did not pay PPI benefits until May 13, 1997. Additionally, the employee argued the employer unfairly or frivolously controverted his claims and did not controvert benefits on a board prescribed form.

At the hearing, the employee argued the employer failed to timely pay Dr. Schurig’s bills, thus warranting interest and penalties. Moreover, the employee requested a determination as to whether he could obtain a PPI rating from Dr. Schurig.

At the hearing and in Exhibit "B", the employee argued the 52-week time period used in calculating his gross weekly earnings under AS 23.30.220(4)(a) should be extended by 11 weeks. The employee asserted the Board has discretion under 8 AAC 45.063(b) to extend time periods. In the alternative, the employee requested the Board increase his compensation rate by taking into account a pay raise he received after the injury and the 1996 wages of similarly situated workers.

As specified above, the employee asserted the employer committed numerous acts of misconduct and requested the Board refer these alleged acts to the proper authorities.

The employer argued all TTD benefits for the period between April 21, 1997 and November 5, 1997 were properly controverted based on the April 21, 1997 report by Dr. James and the June 24, 1997 report by Dr. Silver. According to the employer, there was substantial evidence to support the denial, there were no unfair or frivolous controversions and when the benefits were accepted, they were paid timely with interest.

In addition, the employer noted that a review of the file indicated the employee was due TPD benefits from January 9, 2000 until January 30, 2000, as he was not paid full wages during that period. The employer stated the insurer has already paid benefits with interest and penalties.

The employer also contended no penalty is due on the PPI benefits paid on May 13, 1997. According to the employer, even if oral notice was sufficient to trigger payment, May 13^th would have been the 21^st day, making payment timely. However, the employer argued it had nothing in writing from Dr. James confirming the PPI rating until April 29, 1997, and PPI benefits were paid within fourteen days thereafter. As such, PPI benefits were timely paid.

Furthermore, the employer argued the employee’s compensation rate was correctly set, using the best 13-week period in the 52 weeks preceding the injury. The employer asserted the employee’s last thirteen weeks were his highest with 475.50 regular hours and 34.5 overtime hours.

The employer also argued the employee obtained a PPI rating from Dr. James, a treating physician, and the employer paid PPI benefits based upon such rating. Therefore, the employer should not be required to pay for another PPI rating.

Finally, the employer argued the employee’s allegations of misconduct on the part of the employer are unfounded. There was never any attempt by the employer to mislead the Division of Insurance or the employee. Specifically, the employer argued it did not shuffle documents in an attempt to make discovery difficult. The employer contended it provided discovery as it was contained in the file. The employer argued any errors committed pertaining to the production of documents were mere copying errors, the type of which are common when document production is requested. Moreover, according to the employer, there was never any attempt to deprive the employee of benefits due, and penalties have been paid on any past errors made regarding the payment of benefits. The employer urged the Board to deny and dismiss the employee’s claims.

AS 23.30.155 provides in part:

1. Compensation under this chapter shall be paid periodically, promptly and directly to the person entitled to it, without an award, except where liability to pay compensation is controverted by the employer. To controvert a claim the employer must file a notice, on a form prescribed by the board...

1. ...If the employer controverts the right to compensation after payments have begun, the employer shall file with the board and send to the employee a notice of controversion within seven days after an installment of compensation payable without an award is due...
2. If any installment of compensation payable without an award is not paid within seven days after it becomes due, as provided in (b) of this section, there shall be added to the unpaid installment an amount equal to 25 percent of it. This additional amount shall be paid at the same time as, and in addition to, the installments, unless notice is filed under (d) of this section...

Our regulation 8 AAC 45.082(d) provides, in part:

1. a medical bill or if the medical bill is not paid in full as billed, the employer shall tell the employee and medical provider in writing the reasons for not paying all or a part of the bill or the reason for delay in the payment within 14 days of receipt of the bill and completed report on form 07-6102...

We find the employer suspended benefits on April 21, 1997 after Dr. James, the employee’s treating physician, found the employee medically stable. We find the employee then switched to Dr. Schurig, who concluded the employee was not medically stable on June 24, 1997. We further find the employer controverted all benefits on July 11, 1997 on the basis of Dr. James’ April 21, 1997 report and Dr. Silver’s June 24, 1997 report. We find the employer had substantial evidence to support its July 11, 1997 controversion. As such, no penalties are due on TTD benefits paid from April 21, 1997 until November 4, 1997.

Moreover, we find while the employer eventually chose to accept payment of the TTD benefits from April 21, 1997 until November 4, 1997 on the basis of Dr. Smith’s report, their controversion was nonetheless valid. Moreover, after accepting TTD benefits, we find the employer again controverted benefits due to outstanding employment discovery. We find the employer properly postponed payment of benefits until the employee’s employment activities between April 21, 1997 and November 4, 1997 could be confirmed.

Furthermore, we find TPD benefits for the period from January 9, 1997 through January 30, 1997 were paid with interest and penalties. Thus, we conclude no further penalties are due.

Additionally, we find Dr. James determined the employee had a PPI rating of 5% in his report dated April 29, 1997. We find the employer paid PPI payments on May 13, 1997. Although the employee gave a second-hand oral report of the PPI rating to the employer on April 22, 1997, Dr. James did not actually give the employer notice of the rating until his April 29, 1997 report. We find even if the employee’s oral notice triggered payment, PPI benefits were paid within 21 days thereafter. As such, we find this payment timely and no penalties are due.

Finally, we find medical bills from Dr. Schurig’s office were submitted to the employer, and then returned by a bill reviewer for a lack of information. We find these bills were resubmitted by Dr. Schurig’s office on June 11, 1998 with the additional information sought, and that payment for all of Dr. Schurig’s bills was made by June 23, 1998. Consequently, we find no penalties are due.

1. INTEREST

1. If compensation is not paid when due, interest must be paid at the rate established in AS 45.45.010. If more than one installment of compensation is past due, interest must be paid from the date each installment of compensation was due, until paid. If compensation for past period is paid under an order issued by the board, interest on the compensation award must be paid from the date of each unpaid installment of compensation.

We find the employer paid interest on TTD benefits paid for the period from April 21, 1997 to November 4, 1997 and on TPD benefits paid from January 9, 2000 to January 30, 1997. We further find, as above, PPI benefits paid on May 13, 1997 were timely. Further, we find medical benefits paid to Dr. Schurig were timely. As such, we can identify no interest due under 8 AAC 45.142.

1. FRIVOLOUS OR UNFAIR CONTROVERSION

AS 23.30.155(o) provides, in part:

The board shall promptly notify the division of insurance if the board determines that the employer’s insurer has frivolously or unfairly controverted compensation due under this chapter. After receiving notice from the board, the division of insurance shall determine if the insurer has committed an unfair claim settlement practice under AS 21.36.125.

The Alaska Supreme Court held in Harp v. Arco Alaska, Inc., 831 P.2d 352, 358 (Alaska 1992) that an employer must have specific evidence for a good faith controversion under AS 23.30.155(d):

A controversion notice must be filed in good faith to protect an employer from imposition of a penalty...For a controversion notice to be filed in good faith, the employer must possess sufficient evidence in support of the controversion that, if the claimant does not introduce evidence in opposition to the controversion, the Board would find that the claimant is not entitled to benefits.

Id. at 358.

We have applied the court’s reasoning in Harp and have held that a controversion not make in good faith is frivolous and unfair for the purposes of AS 23.30.155(o). Waddell v. Eagle Hardware & Garden, Inc., AWCB Decision No. 98.0095 (April 17, 1998); Stair v. Pool Arctic Alaska Drilling, AWCB Decision No. 98-0092 (April 13, 1998). We consistently require an employer or insurer to have specific evidence on which to base a controversion. See, Lincoln v. TIC-The Industrial Co., AWCB Decision No. 97-0212 (October 20, 1997).

We find Dr. James, the employee’s treating physician, determined on April 21, 1997 that the employee was medically stable and could return to medium work. We find the Compensation Report dated May 7, 1997 demonstrates benefits were suspended on April 21, 1997. We find the employee switched to Dr. Schurig, who found the employee medically unstable on June 24, 1997. At the same time, Dr. Silver concluded the employee attained medical stability on June 24, 1997, could return to his job with no restriction and had a 0% PPI rating. We find the employer controverted all benefits on July 11, 1997 based upon the April 21, 1997 report by Dr. James and the June 24, 1997 report by Dr. Silver. We find these reports clearly provided reasonable grounds on which to controvert benefits.

Moreover, we find while the employer indicated on March 4, 1998 that they would accept the period of disability supported by Dr. Smith’s SIME report, the employer also controverted benefits on March 4, 1998, pending receipt of employment discovery. Summerville v. Denali, 84 P.2d 1047, 1051 (Alaska 1991). We conclude the employer properly controverted on the basis of outstanding employment discovery. The employer was entitled to confirmation of employment activity before paying time-loss benefits and in order to set the compensation rate.

Considering the record and the standard articulated in Harp, we conclude the employer did not act in bad faith. Moreover, we find though the employer used 1994 controversion notice forms, those notices contained the substantive elements of a proper controversion. Consequently, we conclude the employee’s claims that the employer’s controversions were frivolous and unfair must be denied and dismissed.

2. COMPENSATION RATE ADJUSTMENT

1. Computation of compensation under the chapter shall be on the basis of an employer’s spendable weekly wage at the time of injury...(emphasis added)

1. employee’s earnings are calculated by the day, hour, or by the output of the employee, the employee’s gross weekly earnings are the employee’s earnings most favorable to the employee computed by dividing 13 the employee’s earnings, not including overtime or premium pay, earned during any period of 13 consecutive calendar weeks within the 52 weeks immediately preceding the injury.

The employee requests the Board allow an 11-week extension to the 52-week period used to calculate his gross weekly earnings under AS 23.30.220. The employee cites our regulation, 8 AAC 45.063(b),²²in support of his request for an extension of the time period set forth in AS 23.30.220. However, we find our regulation 8 AAC 45.063(b) only allows the Board to extend a procedural time limitation under our regulations. Our regulation does not vest the Board with power to waive a statutory requirement.

In the alternative, the employee requests the Board increase his $522.94 weekly compensation rate to account for the raise he received after his injury or other workers’ wages. In Gilmore v. The Alaska Worker’s Compensation Board, 882 P.2d 922, 929 (Alaska 1994), the Alaska Supreme Court determined AS 23.30.220(a)(1), in a previous version of the statute, may be unconstitutional as applied in certain circumstances. We have interpreted Gilmore to mean that we must determine whether the facts of each case may cause an unfair application of the law for an injured worker, even though the law itself is not unconstitutional. Beland v. Pioneer Door, AWCB Decision No. 95-0058 (March 2, 1995). Accordingly, we must consider the facts of this case to determine whether a strict application of the statute does not fairly reflect the employee’s future earnings loss.

We have reviewed the evidence in the record and find that while the statutory formula may not reflect the employee’s future earnings loss precisely, it does not yield an unfair result. Thompson v. UPS, 975 P.2d 684 (Alaska 1999). The employer set the employee’s compensation rate using the 13 weeks determined to be the employee’s highest in the 52 weeks preceding his injury, resulting in a gross weekly earnings calculation of $738.08 per week. We find the employee has failed to provide sufficient evidence to support a compensation rate adjustment under Gilmore. Consequently, the employee’s request for a compensation rate adjustment is denied and dismissed.

1. PPI RATING

The employee requests a determination on whether he is entitled to a PPI rating by Dr. Schurig. We find the employee received a PPI rating of 5% from his former treating physician, Dr. James. The statute specifically provides for reasonable and necessary medical treatment under AS 23.30.095. However, at the same time, we find the employee has presented no medical evidence supporting the necessity for a second PPI rating. Therefore, we find the employee’s request for a subsequent PPI rating is premature insofar as he is requesting a Board order preauthorizing what is properly a medical determination. Should Dr. Schurig evaluate the employee for a PPI rating and should a dispute arise, we retain jurisdiction over this matter.

2. REFERRAL OF ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT

In Dougan I, the Board determined it was powerless to adjudicate civil and criminal claims. Moreover, the Board found its authority was limited to referring cases to appropriate authorities "when criminal violations become apparent during the course of proceedings."²³ We hereby reaffirm we have only limited authority to refer allegations which may give rise to criminal causes of action.

In previous petitions, the employee cited AS 23.30.095(i) and AS 23.30.250(b) in conjunction with allegations that the employer committed violations giving rise to civil and criminal causes of action. However, after reviewing the entire record, we find no evidence of apparent violations, criminal or otherwise, on the part of the employer. We find the evidence in the record, particularly the testimony of Shannon Butler, demonstrates that mistakes and misstatements made by the employer were the result of clerical or human error. Moreover, we have reviewed defendants’ Exhibit "A" and find the employer forwarded a copy of its file to the employee. While, the employee may deem the employer’s file disorderly, we find no attempt by the employer to impede discovery. In addition, we do not consider Ms. Butler’s circling of portions of her file an attempt to "insert matter" or alter documents. Ms. Butler testified she circled portions of her copy of the employee’s medical records, not the originals, for her own reference. Furthermore, whether the State of Alaska released information to the employer beyond the scope of the release is irrelevant to the employee’s claim of wrongdoing by the employer. We find no evidence of malfeasance by the employer. Finally, we find no apparent criminal violation regarding a single episode when the insurer passed on information of the employee’s "apparent inebriation" to a medical provider. Consequently, because we find no evidence of criminal violations, the employee’s request for a referral of various allegations of misconduct to other agencies is denied and dismissed.

1. The employee’s request for interest under 8 AAC 45.142 for late-paid time-loss compensation, medical benefits and PPI benefits is denied and dismissed.

1. The employer did not unfairly or frivolously controvert the employee’s claims under AS 23.30.155(d)&(o).
2. The employee’s request for a compensation rate adjustment is denied and dismissed.
3. The employee’s request for an order establishing the entitlement to a PPI rating by Dr. Schurig is denied and dismissed without prejudice.
4. The employee’s request that the Board refer allegations of misconduct to other agencies and authorities is denied and dismissed.

Dated at Anchorage, Alaska this 2 day of February, 2000.

ALASKA WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

/s/ Rhonda L. Reinhold
Rhonda Reinhold,
Designated Chairman

/s/ HM Lawlor
Harriet Lawlor, Member

This compensation order is a final decision. It becomes effective when filed in the office of the Board unless proceedings to appeal it are instituted. Proceedings to appeal must be instituted in Superior Court within 30 days of the filing of this decision and be brought by a party in interest against the Board and all other parties to the proceedings before the Board, as provided in the Rules of Appellate Procedure of the State of Alaska.

A party may ask the Board to reconsider this decision by filing a petition for reconsideration under AS 44.62.540 and in accordance with 8 AAC 45.050. The petition requesting reconsideration must be filed with the Board within 15 days after delivery or mailing of this decision.

Within one year after the rejection of a claim or within one year after the last payment of benefits under AS 23.30.180, 23.30.185, 23.30.190, 23.30.200 or 23.30.215 a party may ask the Board to modify this decision under AS 23.30.130 by filing a petition in accordance with 8 AAC 45.150 and 8 AAC 45.050.

I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of the Final Decision and Order in the matter of RANDY S. DOUGAN employee/applicant; v. AURORA ELECTRIC, INC, employer; EAGLE PACIFIC INSURANCE, insurer/defendants; Case No. 199624451; dated and filed in the office of the Alaska Workers' Compensation Board in Anchorage, Alaska, this 2 day of February, 2000.

Brady D. Jackson, III, Clerk