Alaska Top Court Upholds Waiver Rule on Cross Examination of Medical Reports Request

Case File

The Alaska Supreme Court held that the failure timely request cross examination of doctors who filed medical reports in a workers' compensation case resulted in an employer's waiving its opportunity to cross examine. Simply Research subscribers have access to the full text of the decision.

Case

Woodell v. Alaska Regional Hospital Indemnity Insurance Company of North America, No. S-18740 (Alaska 09/19/25)

What Happened

A hospital nurse sought workers' compensation for disability and medical care related to an infection he allegedly contracted at work. The hospital disputed that the disease was work-related. At a hearing, the Alaska Workers' Compensation Board ruled that the hospital had not timely sought to cross examine the authors of medical reports the nurse had submitted, so the hospital waived its opportunity for cross examination.

The board awarded benefits to the nurse.

On appeal, the Alaska Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission affirmed the award of workers' compensation but also concluded that the board erred in ruling that the hospital waived its right to cross examine, finding that the documents at issue were not actually "medical reports" because they were not prepared in the ordinary course of business. The commission remanded the case to the board, which reversed its initial decision and rejected the nurse's claim for benefits.

The nurse appealed to the commission, which agreed with the board. The nurse then appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court.

Rule of Law

When "a party in interest" files "a claim or other pleading," the Alaska Workers' Compensation Act directs all parties to file the "reports of all physicians relating to the proceedings" and imposes a continuing duty "to file and serve all the reports during the pendency of the proceeding."

If the party filing an affidavit of readiness for hearing wants the opportunity to cross examine the author of a medical report listed on the medical summaries that have been filed, that party must file with the board a request for cross-examination “together with the affidavit of readiness for hearing.” A party served with a hearing request must file a request for cross-examination of “the author of a medical report listed on the medical summaries filed as of the date of service” of the hearing request “within 10 days after service of the affidavit of readiness for hearing.” 

The board's Affidavit of Readiness for Hearing form has instructions warning those completing the form that they “must comply with” a requirement that they “[a]ttach a ‘Request for Cross-Examination’ if [they] wish to cross-examine the authors of any medical reports listed on any party's ‘Medical Summary’ to date.” Separate deadlines apply to cross-examination requests related to medical summaries filed after a hearing request.

A separate regulation allows the board to rely on any document, properly served, that is in the Board's possession “20 or more days before hearing, unless a written request for an opportunity to cross-examine the document's author” is filed and served “at least 10 days before the hearing.” The board may rely on the documents regardless of whether cross-examination is requested if:1) the document is admissible under a hearsay exception of the Alaska Rules of Evidence; 2) the document is not hearsay under the Alaska Rules of Evidence; or 3) the document is a second independent medical evaluation report. 

This regulation exempts medical reports from its rule about cross examination, deferring to the rule on medical reports.

What the Alaska Supreme Court Said

The court held that the commission erred by ruling that the documents in question were not "medical reports." In the court's view, the board's initial interpretation was reasonable.

Specifically, the court highlighted that the board's interpretation of the phrase "medical reports" to include written medical opinions prepared for litigation was consistent with the ordinary meaning of that phrase.

Looking to dictionary definitions of "report," the court found that "these definitions encompass a wide range of medical documents, including both documents that fall within a hearsay exception, like hospital notes or imaging reports, and those that do not, such as reports prepared for litigation by parties' doctors."

The court also found that the board's interpretation was consistent with the Workers' Compensation Act, which requires the parties to file the "reports of all physicians" when a claim is filed and imposes a duty to file these reports throughout the case.

"The Commission's interpretation of 'medical reports' as including only documents 'kept in the ordinary course of business' is both narrower than the ordinary meaning of 'report' and inconsistent with our understanding in [a previous case] that the report of an employer's medical expert is a 'medical report,'" the court reasoned.

Additionally, the court found that the board's administrative decisions interpreting and applying the relevant regulation consistently held that waiver of cross examination occurs when timely requests to cross examine medical reports aren't filed.

Verdict: The court reversed the commission's remand order and vacated the subsequent decisions that followed and remanded for reinstatement of the compensation award.

Takeaway

In Alaska, the term "medical reports" is not limited to records prepared in the ordinary course of business.

Share This Article: