Ms. Parsons continued working for the school district.

In May 2010, the school district "decided not to retain" Ms. Parsons and that September she filed another workers' compensation claim based on the 2001 incident.

The claim sought benefits for TTD, TPD, permanent total disability ("PTD"), and permanent partial impairment ("PPI"), as well as medical costs and reemployment benefits.

The school district again denied the claim and filed a notice of controversion of all the requested benefits.

The Alaska Workers' Compensation Board held a hearing in August 2011 on both the 2001 and the 2010 claims. The school district asked the board to deny or dismiss the claims because of statutes of limitations.

The board denied the school district's request for dismissal based on the statutes of limitations, but at the same time it denied Ms. Parsons' workers' compensation claims on the merits. The Alaska Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission affirmed.

In September 2017, Ms. Parsons wrote a letter to the board asking for help "reopen[ing]" her case. The board treated the letter as a request to modify its 2011 decision and held a hearing in January 2018 on the request to reopen the claim.

The school district pointed out that many years had elapsed between the commission's 2011 decision and Ms. Parsons' letter seeking to reopen the claim. It argued that there was no reason to allow the claim to be reopened because the board had correctly applied its presumption analysis in 2011 and Ms. Parsons had no new evidence that could support a different result.

In February 2018, the board denied Ms. Parsons' petition to reopen her claim and granted the school district's petition to dismiss the claim. The commission affirmed, and the dispute reached the Supreme Court of Alaska.

The Alaska Supreme Court's Decision

The court affirmed, finding that the commission had correctly decided that substantial evidence supported the board's denial of Ms. Parsons' petition to reopen her claim.

In its decision, the court explained that the only new evidence Ms. Parsons submitted for the January 2018 hearing was a set of medical records from an orthopedics practice in North Carolina, which the board and the commission concluded did not support her position or rebut the evidence of employer medical evaluation ("EME") physicians – and Ms. Parsons' own doctors – that formed the basis of the board's 2011 decision on the merits. Therefore, the court affirmed the commission's ruling upholding the board's decision to deny the petition to reopen the case.

The court also ruled that, treating Ms. Parsons' claim as a new claim, the commission had correctly concluded that res judicata barred it.

The court reasoned that the board's 2011 decision was a final decision on the merits that Ms. Parsons appealed to the commission, which the commission affirmed. The court also noted that the board had authority to hear and decide disputed workers' compensation claims and that the commission had jurisdiction over Ms. Parsons' appeal.

Finally, the court pointed out that Ms. Parsons' 2011 claim sought many benefits, including PTD and medical benefits, that appeared to be what Ms. Parsons was seeking now. Her 2017 claim, the court concluded, essentially reasserted the 2011 claim – she did not have a new theory of causation or new medical evidence that might demonstrate an error in the board's earlier analysis of the issue – and the same parties – Ms. Parsons and the school district – were involved in the litigation.

Because all elements for the application of res judicata were met in this case, the court affirmed the commission's decision that res judicata barred Ms. Parsons' 2017 claim.

The case is Parsons v. Craig City School District, Nos. S-17326, 1748 (Alaska Nov. 20, 2019). Attorneys involved include: Rebecca Holdiman Miller, Holmes Weddle & Barcott, P.C., Anchorage, for Appellees.