Alaska Workers’ Compensation Board - Final Decision and Order - AWCB Case No. 200906554

Sep 13, 2026

Uploaded by Kurz

Final Decision and Order of the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Board addressing Ramon Rivero’s workers’ compensation claim against Coldfoot Environmental Services, Inc. and Zurich American Insurance Co. The decision resolves preliminary evidentiary matters and five substantive issues, including admission of medical records, whether the work injury substantially caused treatment needs and disability, entitlement to temporary total disability from January 23, 2010, eligibility for reemployment benefits, and whether statutory interest and transportation costs are warranted.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryLetters

FormatPDF

Pages62

Reading Time22 min

AccessFree to download

Issues

Medical records admissibility

Substantial cause of lower back treatment

Entitlement to temporary total disability (TTD)

Eligibility for reemployment benefits

Entitlement to statutory interest

Entitlement to transportation costs

Findings of Fact

ALASKA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD P.O. Box 25512 Juneau, Alaska 99802-5512 RAMON RIVERO, Employee, Claimant, v. COLDFOOT ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC., Employer, and ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE CO., Insurer, Defendants. )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) FINAL DECISION AND ORDER AWCB Case No. 200906554 AWCB Decision No. 13-0108 Filed with AWCB Anchorage, Alaska on September 04, 2013 On February 5, 2013, Ramon Rivero’s (Employee) February 2, 2010 workers ’ compensation claim, as amended, was heard in Anchorage, Alaska, a date selected on June 13, 2012. Employee appeared, testified, and represented himself. Attorney Jeffrey Holloway appeared and represented Cold Foot Environmental Services, Inc. (Employer) . M. Grace Anderson served as interpreter. The parties’ January 25, 2013 stipulation for approval of employee’s attorney’s fees and costs was approved on June 3, 2013. As a preliminary matter, Employee offered medical records from Alfred Lonser, M.D., at hearing as evidence. Employer objected. This decision addresses the preliminary matter and decides Employee’s claim and Employer’s petition appealing the Rehabilitation Benefits Administrator’s (RBA) designee’s decision on their merits. Ramon Rivero v. Coldfoot Environmental Services Inc. The record was left open to allow Employee to submit a transportation log, to which Employer objected. Employee submitted the log on February 15, 2013, and the record closed on February 19, 2013, when the board next met. ISSUES Employee contended his reports from Dr. Lonser should be considered at hearing. He contended the records were recently obtained and were, therefore, timely filed. Employer objected, contending the records were untimely under 8 AAC 45.120(f), and were not filed on a medical summary. Employer also contended its May 16, 2011 request for cross examination of Dr. Lonser, and Employee’s failure to produce Dr. Lonser for cross-examination precluded Employee from relying upon these records at hearing. 1. Should Dr. Lonser’s chart notes be admitted in full or in part? Employee contends he continues to need back surgery because of his work injury. He seeks an order requiring Employer to preauthorize it. Employer contends work is not the substantial cause of Employee’s disability or need for treatment for Employee’s back. It seeks an order denying medical care for the low back. 2. Was Employee’s work for Employer the substantial cause of the need for Employee’slower back treatment? Employee contends he was injured at work, continues to suffer from pain, is unable to work, and, as a result, is entitled to additional temporary total disability (TTD) payments plus interest beginning January 23, 2010, and continuing. Employer contends Employee was medically stable as of January 22, 2010. It contends it paid TTD through this date and does not owe additional TTD based on the opinion of employer medical evaluator (EME) John Ballard, M.D. Ramon Rivero v. Coldfoot Environmental Services Inc. 3. Is Employee entitled to TTD from January 23, 2010, to the present? Employer contends the RBA designee erred by finding Employee eligible for retraining benefits. It seeks an order vacating the designee’s decision based on the fact Employee can return to work as a barber. Employee contends his pain precludes him from returning to his job at the time of injury or any jobs he held in the ten years before his injury, and he is therefore entitled to reemployment benefits. He seeks an order affirming the RBA designee’s finding. 4. Is Employee eligible for reemployment benefits? Employee contends he is entitled to interest on all benefits unpaid when due. He seeks an order awarding statutory interest Employer contends Employee is not entitled to any additional benefits. Therefore, it contends he is not entitled to interest. 5. Is Employee entitled to interest? Employee contends he is entitled to costs related to travel t

FAQs

What preliminary matter did the board decide in this case?

Employee offered medical records from Alfred Lonser, M.D., and Employer objected. The decision addresses the evidentiary preliminary matter and proceeds to decide the merits issues.

How does the board evaluate whether Dr. Lonser’s chart notes can be admitted?

The dispute centers on timeliness and whether the records were filed appropriately under Alaska workers’ compensation evidentiary requirements, including Employer’s request for cross-examination and Employee’s failure to produce the doctor.

What main benefit and expense issues are decided?

The decision addresses entitlement to low-back treatment, temporary total disability payments from January 23, 2010, reemployment benefits, statutory interest on unpaid benefits, and transportation costs for obtaining medical treatment.

Sep 13, 2026

Uploaded by Kurz