PETRA A. DELACRUZ, 
Employee, 
Applicant
v. 
SHELLEY MESCEDA, a.k.a. SHELLEY MILLER, d.b.a. ALASKA BUSINESS CLEANING SVC,
(Uninsured) Employer,
Defendant.

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

ERRATA SHEET
DECISION AND ORDER
AWCB Case No. 199811037
AWCB Decision No. 99-0227 
Filed with AWCB Anchorage, Alaska
on November 9, 1999

We issued a Decision and Order, AWCB Decision No. 99-0227, on this case on November 9, 1999. The decision contained three errors, the result of clerical error in the calculation of the legal costs as stipulated to by the parties.

On page 4, the second paragraph presently reads:

The employee argued she is due TTD benefits, medical benefits, penalties for the employer’s failure to file notice of the injury, penalties for the employer’s failure to file notice of the injury, penalties for the employer’s failure to file notice of the injury, interest, attorney fees of $7,140.00 and legal costs of $566.13 as itemized in two affidavits, and translation costs for 12 hours at $25.00 per hour.

Page 4, the second paragraph should read:

The employee argued she is due TTD benefits, medical benefits, penalties for the employer’s failure to file notice of the injury, penalties for the employer’s failure to file notice of the injury, penalties for the employer’s failure to file notice of the injury, interest, attorney fees of $7,140.00 and legal costs of $566.13 as itemized in two affidavits, including translation costs for 12 hours at $25.00 per hour.

On page 12, the last sentence of the third paragraph presently reads:

We will award the $7,140.00 in attorney fees, and $866.13 in legal costs, requested by the employee.

Page 12, the last sentence of the third paragraph should read:

We will award the $7,140.00 in attorney fees, and $566.13 in legal costs, requested by the employee.

On page 13, the Order #7 presently reads:

7. The employer shall pay the employee $7,140.00 in reasonable attorney fees, and $866.13 in legal costs, under AS 23.30.145(b).

Page 13, Order #7 should read:

7. The employer shall pay the employee $7,140.00 in reasonable attorney fees, and $566.13 in legal costs, under AS 23.30.145(b).

Dated at Anchorage, Alaska this 16 day of November, 1999.

ALASKA WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

/s/ William Walters
William Walters,
Designated Chairman

I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of the Errata in the matter of PETRA A. DELACRUZ employee / applicant v. ALASKA BUSINESS CLEANING SVC, ununsured employer / defendant; Case No. 199811037; dated and filed in the office of the Alaska Workers' Compensation Board in Anchorage, Alaska, this 16 day of November, 1999.

Brady D. Jackson III, Clerk

SNO

PETRA A. DELACRUZ, 
Employee, 
Applicant,
v. 
SHELLEY MESCEDA, a.k.a. SHELLEY MILLER, d.b.a. ALASKA BUSINESS CLEANING SVC,
(Uninsured) Employer,
Defendant. 

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

FINAL
DECISION AND ORDER
AWCB Case No. 199811037
AWCB Decision No. 99-0227
Filed with AWCB Anchorage, Alaska
on November 9, 1999

We heard the employee's claim for temporary total disability (TTD) benefits, medical benefits, penalties, interest, attorney fees, and costs in Anchorage, Alaska, on November 4, 1999. Attorney William Soule represented the employee. Gladys Baronja served as a Spanish interpreter for the employee. The employer represented herself. We closed the record at the conclusion of the hearing.

1. Is the employee entitled to TTD benefits under AS 23.30.185 from May 8, 1998 through March 7, 1999?

2. Is the employee entitled to certain medical benefits under AS 23.30.095(a)?

3. Is the employee entitled to a 20 percent penalty under AS 23.30.070(f)?

4. Is the employee entitled to a 20 percent penalty under AS 23.30.085(b)?

5. Is the employee entitled to a 20 percent penalty under AS 23.30.155(e)?

6. Are the employee and/or her physicians entitled to interest under 8 AAC 45.142?

7. Is the employee entitled to attorney fees and costs under AS 23.30.145?

The employee fell on a wet floor while working as a building cleaner for the employer in Anchorage, Alaska on May 7, 1998, injuring her back, both knees and ankles, and her left arm and shoulder. She went to the Providence Hospital emergency room, where the physician referred her to get Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) studies done on both knees. The MRIs were done on June 6, 1998, and showed a partial tear of the medial collateral ligaments of both knees. The employee came under the care of David Mulholland, D.C., who restricted her from work and provided conservative chiropractic care.

The employee testified she completed her portion of an injury report, but the employer refused to complete and file the rest of the form. The employer confirmed this in her testimony. The employee was unable to secure TTD benefits or medical benefits, so she obtained an attorney, and filed a Workers’ Compensation claim form on June 28, 1998. The claim was set for a hearing on November 4, 1999.

At the hearing, the parties presented a signed Stipulation to Material Facts By Parties, and requested a written order based on that stipulation. The content of the stipulation follows:

COME NOW parties Petra de la Cruz and Shelley Mesceda a/k/a Shelley Miller, d/b/a Alaska Business Cleaning Service, and make the following stipulations of fact pursuant to 8 AAC 45.050(f)(3-4), because they agree there is no dispute as to any material fact:

1) Petra de la Cruz was injured while employed as a janitor by Shelley Mesceda a/k/a Shelley Miller d/b/a Alaska Business Cleaning Service (hereinafter jointly referred to as ABCS) on 5/7/98.

2) Ms. de la Cruz' injuries to her knees, ankles, spine, elbows and left arm and shoulder arose out of and in the course of her ABCS employment.

3) ABCS was not insured for workers' compensation injuries as required by law on 5/7/98.

4) ABCS did not file evidence of compliance as required by AS 23.30.085(a).

5) ABCS did not complete or file the report of injury as required by AS 23.30.070(a).

6) ABCS received copies of medical records and associated bills for all of Ms. de la Cruz work-related injuries arising from this injury but has made no payments of any type to or on behalf of Ms. de la Cruz.

7) The medical care, diagnostic tests, and treatment the claimant has received to date for this 5/7/98 injury has been proximately caused by the injury, has been reasonable and has been necessary given the nature of the injury and the process of recovery.

8) Given the facts and circumstances of this case and the claimant's injury, the Board's frequency of treatment standards applicable to chiropractic care were unreasonable in this case and a preponderance of the evidence supports this conclusion.

9) The employee and the employer received a valid and appropriate treatment plan from Dr. Mulholland's office within 14 days after his treatments began.

10) Dr. Mulholland's treatments improved the claimant's condition.

11) ABCS owes Alaska Radiology $476.00, Dr. Mason $258.00, Providence Hospital $719.80, Providence Imaging $1,806.00, and Dr. Mulholland $5,768.00 in medical expenses as the result of this injury.

12) ABCS owes the above providers interest in the total sum of $947.92 as of 11/4/99.

13) ABCS paid the claimant $7.00 per hour at the time of the injury,

14) [deleted]

15) Ms. de la Cruz was employed for less than 13 consecutive weeks prior to her 5/7/98 injury.

16) Ms. de la Cruz' TTD rate shall be $147.75 for all purposes.

17) Ms. de la Cruz was temporarily totally disabled from all employment for which she was qualified and capable because of this 5/7/98 work-related injury from 5/8/98 through 3/7/99.

18) ABCS owes the claimant $4,094.79 in TTD, plus interest of $527.72 as of 11/4/99.

19) At the time of this injury the claimant was single and had only self as a dependent for tax purposes.

20) ABCS never filed a controversion notice on a form prescribed by the Board in accordance with AS 23.30.155(a), but did controvert in fact by failing to pay any benefits under the Act.

21) The claimant retained an attorney who has provided valuable legal services that were both necessary and reasonable in nature, rate, and duration.

22) The claimant has incurred out-of-pocket expenses in this matter that were both ;reasonable and necessary.

23) ABCS has no defenses to the claimant's claims, raises no defenses, and did not file an answer to the claims so the Claimant's allegations are deemed admitted pursuant to 8 AAC 45.050(c)(1).

24) The claimant received no unemployment benefits in any week in which she claims TTD.

25) These stipulated facts form the basis to raise the § 120 presumption and cause it to attach and there are no contrary facts to rebut the § 120 presumption as to any issue or claim raised by the claimant.

Based upon the above, stipulated facts the named parties jointly request the Board make factual findings without further evidence or testimony being taken. The named parties also request the Board immediately issue its conclusions of law and its decision on Ms. de la Cruz' claim as set forth in the listed issues 1-9 on pages 1-2 of Claimant's brief, based on its findings and conclusions, which are based on these factual stipulations.

At the hearing, the employer testified her workers’ compensation insurance had lapsed while she was out of town for 14 days. As a result of a breakdown in her marriage, the insurance premium did not get paid. She found out about the injury when she returned to town, and had the insurance coverage back in place within 23 days after the employee’s injury. She testified to her financial constraints and her attempts to settle the employee’s claims. She admitted she did not dispute the employee’s entitlement to most of the benefits claimed, but argued she had not understood the law, and she disputed the employee’s entitlement to penalties.

The employee argued she is due TTD benefits, medical benefits, penalties for the employer’s failure to file notice of the injury, penalties for the employer’s failure to file notice of the injury, penalties for the employer’s failure to file notice of the injury, interest, attorney fees of $7,140.00 and legal costs of $566.13 as itemized in two affidavits, and translation costs for 12 hours at $25.00 per hour.

I. REQUEST FOR AN ORDER BASED ON THE STIPULATION

Our regulations at 8 AAC 45.050(f) provides, in part:

Based on our review of the record, and on the parties' stipulation of the fact regarding this case, we will exercise our discretion to issue an order in accord with 8 AAC 45.050(f). This order will bind the parties in accord with the Alaska Supreme Court decision in Underwater Const. Inc. v. Shirley, 884 P.2d 156, 161 (Alaska 1994). If, on the basis of a change in condition or mistake of fact, the parties wish to change the benefits awarded, they must file a claim or petition with us to request modification of this decision and order under AS 23.30.130.

II. TEMPORARY TOTAL DISABILITY BENEFITS

AS 23.30.185 provides:

The Alaska Workers' Compensation Act defines "disability" as "incapacity because of injury to earn the wages which the employee was receiving at the time of injury in the same or any other employment." AS 23.30.395(10). Also, AS 23.30.120 provides a general presumption of compensability for an employee's injuries. Meek v. Unocal Corp., 914 P.2d 1276, 1279-1280 (Alaska 1996).

AS 23.30.120(a) reads, in part: "In a proceeding for the enforcement of a claim for compensation under this chapter it is presumed, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, that (1) the claim comes within the provisions of this chapter. . . ." The presumption attaches if the employee makes a minimal showing of a preliminary link between the disability and employment. Olson v. AIC/Martin J.V., 818 P.2d 669, 675 (Alaska 1991).

To make a prima facie case, the employee must present some evidence that (1) she has an injury, and (2) an employment event or exposure could have caused it. "[I]n claims 'based on highly technical medical considerations,' medical evidence is often necessary in order to make that connection." Burgess Const. Co. v. Smallwood, 623 P.2d 312 (Alaska 1981).

In this case, the employee is claiming TTD benefits under AS 23.30.185. We find the stipulation of the parties and the medical records of the employee’s physicians, especially the records of David Mulholland, D.C., provide sufficient evidence to raise the presumption that the employee injured her knees, ankles, spine, elbows, and her left arm and shoulder in a fall at her work. We also find the record, provides sufficient evidence to raise the presumption that the employee was unable to return to work from May 8, 1998 and March 7, 1999, as a result of her work injuries.

To overcome the presumption once it attaches, the employer must present substantial evidence that the claim is not work-related. Louisiana Pacific Corp. v. Koons, 816 P.2d 1379, 1381 (Alaska 1991), Smallwood, 689 P.2d at 1211. Substantial evidence is "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind would accept in light of all the evidence to support a conclusion." Fireman's Fund Am. Ins. Co. v. Gomes, 544 P.2d 1013, 1015 (Alaska 1976) (quoting Thornton v. Alaska Workmen's Compensation Bd., 411 P.2d 209, 210 (Alaska 1966)); see, also, Kessick v. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co., 617 P.2d 755, 757 (Alaska 1980). There are two methods of overcoming the presumption of compensability: (1) presenting affirmative evidence that the disability is not work-related, or (2) eliminating all reasonable possibilities that the disability is work-related. Norcon v. AWCB, 880 P.2d 1051, 1054 (Alaska 1994); Grainger v. Alaska Workers' Compensation Board, 805 P.2d 976, 977 (Alaska 1991).

The same standards used to determine whether medical evidence is necessary to establish the preliminary link apply to determine whether medical evidence is necessary to overcome the presumption. Wolfer, 693 P.2d at 871. "Since the presumption shifts only the burden of production and not the burden of persuasion, the evidence tending to rebut the presumption should be examined by itself." Id. at 869.

In this case, the employer has provided no evidence to rebut the presumption of compensability. Accordingly. We find the employee is entitled to the TTD benefits she claims. Smallwood, 689 P.2d at 1211.

III. COMPENSATION RATE

AS 23.30.220(a) provides, in part:

1. if at the time of injury . . . (B) the employee has been employed less than 13 calendar weeks immediately preceding the injury, then . . . the employee’s gross weekly earnings are computed by determining the amount that the employee would have earned . . . had the employee been employed by the employer for 13 calendar weeks immediately preceding the injury and dividing this sum by 13. . . .

AS 23.30.220 provides more than one way to calculate the spendable weekly wage of an injured worker in order to determine the weekly TTD compensation rate under AS 23.30.185. In this case the employee claims her gross weekly earnings at the time of her injury as the appropriate basis. The parties stipulate the appropriate compensation rate is $147.75 per week. We find no evidence to rebut the stipulated facts. We conclude the evidence raises an unrebutted presumption of compensability at the stipulated rate, and we will award benefits at that rate, under AS 23.30.220(a)(4)(B). Meek, 914 P.2d at 1279-1280. Based on the period of TTD we found the employee eligible to receive, May 8, 1998 through March 7, 1999, we conclude the employee is entitled to $4,094.79 in TTD benefits.

IV. MEDICAL BENEFITS

AS 23.30.095(a) provides, in part:

This presumption of compensability at AS 23.30.120(a) also applies to claims for medical benefits. Municipality of Anchorage v. Carter, 818 P.2. 661, 665 (Alaska 1991). Treatment must be reasonable and necessary to be payable under subsection 95(a). See Weinberger v. Matanuska-Susitna School District, AWCB No. 810201 (July 15, 1981), aff'd 3AN-81-5623 (Alaska Super. Ct June 30, 1982), aff'd, Ireland Chiropractic Clinic v. Matanuska-Susitna School District, memorandum opinion and judgment, Op. No. 7033 (Alaska S. Ct. June 1, 1983).

The evidence necessary to raise the presumption of compensability varies depending on the type of claim. "[I]n claims based on highly technical medical considerations, medical evidence is often necessary in order to make that connection." Smallwood, 623 P.2d at 316.

In this case, the record reflects the medical treatment claimed by the employee was prescribed by the employee’s treating physicians. These include benefits totaling $9,027.80, as detailed in the stipulation. Specifically, the stipulation and the records indicate Dr. Mulholland has outstanding medical bills for treatment of the employee’s work injury, totaling $5,768.00. The parties stipulate these medical benefits are reasonable and necessary for treatment of the employee’s work related conditions. We find the evidence in the record, and in the stipulation, is sufficient evidence to raise the presumption of compensability.

Once the presumption attaches, substantial evidence must be produced showing the disability is not work-related. Id.; Kessick., 617 P.2d at 757. In this case, the employer asserts no evidence to dispute the employee’s entitlement to these benefits. In accord with AS 23.30.120(a), we conclude the employee is entitled to these medical benefits, totaling $9,027.80.

5. PENALTY UNDER AS 23.30.070(f)

AS 23.30.070(f) provides, in part:

An employer who fails or refuses to send a report required of the employer by this section or who fails or refuses to send the report required by (a) of this section within the time required shall, if so required by the board, pay the employee . . . an additional award equal to 20% of the amounts that were unpaid when due . . .

Based on the documentary record and the stipulation of the parties, we find the employer had not filed a report of the employee’s injury with us as of the date of the hearing. Under AS 23.30.070(a) the employer was required to send a report within 10 days after it had knowledge of the injury. Based on the record, we find the parties have continuously disputed the claimed benefits; and the employer has resisted, and failed to pay, the claimed benefits.

AS 23.30.070(f) provides a civil penalty for an employer’s failure to report injuries, punishing employers for impeding employees’ ability to pursue claims, and (to some degree) compensating employee’s for the delay and hardship the delay causes. See Tinker v. Veco, Inc., 913 P.2d 488 (Alaska 1996); Matanuska Electric Ass’n v. Johnson, 386 P.2d 698 (Alaska 1963). This penalty is discretionary, assessed "if required by the board."

Based on the record and the stipulation of the parties, we find the employee underwent considerable difficulty in securing and paying for medical care, and considerable difficulty in securing TTD benefits. We find the employer’s failure to report the injury was an integral part of its resistance to the employee’s claim. We conclude the 20% penalty under AS 23.30.070(f) is appropriate to apply in this case, and we will order it assessed against the $4,094.79 in TTD benefits and $9,027.80 in medical benefits awarded in this case. See Childs v. Copper Valley Electrical Association 860 P.2d 1184, 1191 (Alaska 1993). Based on the record and the parties’ stipulation, we find this penalty totals $2,624.52. Accordingly, we will award a penalty of $2,624.52, under AS 23.30.070(f), for the employer’s failure to file a report of injury.

6. PENALTY UNDER AS 23.30.085(b)

AS 23.30.085(b) provides, in part: If an employer fails, refuses, or neglects to comply with the provisions of this section, the employer shall be subject to the penalties provided in AS 23.30.070 for failure to report accidents. . . . In Ehredt v. DeHavilland Aircraft Co., 705 P.2d 446 (Alaska 1985) and Matanuska Electric Ass’n, supra, the Alaska Supreme Court identified AS 23.30.085(b) as a civil penalty, which can be assessed in addition to the criminal penalties in the statute, against employers which fail to provide workers’ compensation insurance for their employees.

Based on the documentary record, the stipulation of the parties, and the employer’s testimony, we find the employer’s workers’ compensation insurance had lapsed at the time of the employee’s injury. Consequently she was not able to show proof of insurance. Based on the employer’s testimony and the documentation she provided at the hearing, we find the employer had reinstated her workers’ compensation insurance within 23 days after the employee’s injury.

AS 23.30.085(b) authorizes us to assess penalties under AS 23.30.070(f) against employers which fail to provide proof of insurance. This penalizes employers for failing to file proof of workers’ compensation insurance or self-insurance, and also secures workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. As noted above, a penalty under AS 23.30.0070(f) is discretionary.

In this case, the employer failed to file proof of insurance, but quickly reinstated the lapsed insurance to ensure workers’ compensation coverage for her other employee’s. Because the employer acted to protect her other employees, we will exercise our discretion and decline to apply this penalty against the employer. We will deny and dismiss this claim.

7. PENALTY UNDER AS 23.30.155(e)

AS 23.30.155 provides, in part:

Under AS 23.30.155(b) the TTD benefits claimed by the employee in this case were due 14 days after the employer knew the employee was injured and disabled from work. The medical benefits claimed by the employee were due 14 days after the employee served the medical bills on the employer. We also find the employer had clear notice of these outstanding claims when the employee filed his Workers’ Compensation Claim and it was served on the employer. A 25 percent penalty is due, as a matter of law under AS 23.30.155(e), if the employer fails to pay the TTD or medical benefits within seven days after they become due. Childs 860 P.2d at 1191.

We find the TTD benefits and medical benefits were due 14 days after the employer received notice. We find the employer has failed to controvert the employee's entitlement to those benefits, and has failed to pay the benefits within the time limits of the statute.

We can excuse the late payment only if the employer specifically shows us the payment was not made for reasons beyond the employer's control. See, also, Fahlsing v. Arctic North Services, Inc., AWCB Decision No. 94-0072 (March 29, 1994). We have no evidence of any circumstance rendering the employer unable to meet her legal responsibility to maintain workers’ compensation insurance for her employees. We find the employer has failed to timely pay the TTD benefits and medical benefits within seven days after they were due. We conclude a penalty of $3,280.65 is due for late-paid medical and TTD benefits, under AS 23.30.155(e).

VIII. INTEREST

8 AAC 45.142 provides, in part:

Our regulation at 8 AAC 45.142 requires the payment of interest at a statutory rate of 10.5% per annum, as provided at AS 45.45.010, from the date at which each installment of compensation, including medical compensation, is due. See also, Land & Marine Rental Co. v. Rawls, 686 P.2d 1187 (Alaska 1984); Harp v. Arco Alaska, Inc., 831 P.2d 352 (Alaska 1994); Childs, 860 P.2d at 1191. The employee is entitled to interest from the employer on any outstanding penalties, medical benefits, or other benefits from the date on which those benefits were due. See Williamee v. Derrick Enterprises, AWCB Decision No. 98-0078 (March 27, 1998). Based on the stipulated calculations submitted by the parties, we find the interest due totals $527.72 to the employee, and $947.92 to her medical providers.

IX. ATTORNEY FEES

AS 23.30.145(b) provides:

8 AAC 45.180 provides, in part:

(d)(1) An request for a fee under AS 23.30.145(b)

must be verified by an affidavit itemizing the

hours expended....

We find the payment of the benefits claimed by the employee, was resisted by the action of the employer. Wien Air Alaska v. Arant, 592 P.2d 352 (Alaska 1979). The employee seeks an award of attorney's fee under subsection 145(b) for the benefits obtained. We found the employer liable for the claimed benefits. Consequently, we can award fees and costs under subsection 145(b). Alaska Interstate v. Houston, 586 P.2d 618, 620 (Alaska 1978).

Subsection 145(b) requires the award of attorney's fee to be reasonable. We have examined the record of this case, and the employee's written itemization of fees and costs. In Gertlar v. H & H Contractors, Inc., AWCB Decision No. 97-0105 (May 12, 1997), we found fees similar to those claimed by the employee per hour to be a reasonable fee for a well-experienced workers' compensation attorney, considering his competence and expertise Now, having considered the nature, length, and complexity of the services performed; the tenacious resistance of the employer, as well as the amount of benefits resulting from the services obtained, we find the time spent, the fees claimed, and the costs recorded were reasonable for the successful prosecution of this claim. Thompson v. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., AWCB Decision No. 98-0315 (December 14, 1998). We will award the $7,140.00 in attorney fees, and $866.13 in legal costs, requested by the employee.

1. The employer shall pay the employee TTD benefits under AS 23.30.185, at a compensation rate of $147.75 per week under AS 23.30.220(a)(4)(B), for the period May 8, 1998 through March 7, 1999, in the total amount of $4,094.79.

2. The employer shall provide the employee medical benefits in the amount of $9,027.80 under AS 23.30.095(a), as detailed in the stipulation between the parties.

3. The employer shall pay the employee a 20 percent penalty under AS 23.30.070(f), totaling $2,624.52.

4. The employee’s claim for a 20 percent penalty under AS 23.30.085(b) is denied and dismissed.

5. The employer shall pay the employee a 25 percent penalty under AS 23.30.155(e), totaling $3,280.65.

6. The employer shall pay the employee interest totaling $527.72 under 8 AAC 45.142(a); and the employer shall pay interest totaling $947.92 to her medical providers under 9 AAC 45.142(b).

7. The employer shall pay the employee $7,140.00 in reasonable attorney fees, and $866.13 in legal costs, under AS 23.30.145(b).

Dated at Anchorage, Alaska this 9 of November, 1999.

ALASKA WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

/s/ William Walters
William Walters, Designated Chairman

/s/ Valerie K. Baffone
Valerie Baffone, Member

If compensation is payable under terms of this decision, it is due on the date of issue. A penalty of 25 percent will accrue if not paid within 14 days of the due date, unless an interlocutory order staying payment is obtained in Superior Court.

If compensation is awarded, but not paid within 30 days of this decision, the person to whom the compensation is payable may, within one year after the default of payment, request from the board a supplementary order declaring the amount of the default.

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 PETRA A. DELACRUZ employee / applicant; v. SHELLEY MESCEDA, a.k.a. SHELLEY MILLER, d.b.a. ALASKA BUSINESS CLEANING SVC, uninsured employer / defendant; Case No. 199811037; dated and filed in the office of the Alaska Workers' Compensation Board in Anchorage, Alaska, this _9 day of November, 1999.

Brady D. Jackson III, Clerk

SNO