1989-10-10_REVISION - M1988112 (35)

Home Browse Search

would be no conflict, then there would be no obstacle to the administrative agency exercising a continuing jurisdiction that may be conferred upon it by law. This limitation on the general rule allowed the Alaska Supreme Court to provide a holding which both protected the rights of the parties pending judicial review, yet recognized the continuing jurisdiction conferred upon the agency by law. In ttie Fishback case the agency involved was the Alaska Workmens' Compensation Board. The issue presented was whether the Board, after it had rendered an initial determination upon a worker's total permanent disability and that decision was subject to a judicial review action, could enter an ex parte supplemental order ~~n its own volition requiring the worker to submit to additional medical examinations concerning the permanency of his disability. The Court held that "the exercise of administrative juri=_~diction in ordering further medical examination and treatment whi::e the case was pending in the Superior Court was not inconsistent with the proper exercise of the Court's jurisdiction" and, thex-efore, the Supreme Court refused to hold that the Board's supplemeental order was null and void as was argued by the company. Fishback, at 177 (emphasis added). In explaining its holding the Alaska Supreme Court stated: The Board's ex parte order of August 7, 1964 directed the appellant to provide for a medica_. examination of appellee by a neurosurgeon anti an orthopedic surgeon. There is nothing on thee face of the order or in the record to show that: the Board was attempting to exercise it:ti continuing jurisdiction over the case as to thee question of whether appellee was entitled to permanent partial disability compensation. That is the question that had been decided adversely to appellee's contentions by thee Board in March 1964 and was the basis for the appellee's appeal to the superior court. Thee question before that court was whether thee Board's finding of no permanent partia=_ disability was supported by substantia:. evidence, and was not in any way concerned with whether appellee was entitled to further medical treatment to be furnished by appellant. Fishback, at 177. A case which is also directly on point is Castillo v. Industrial Commission, supra. This is a court of appeals' decision from Arizona, which follows the line of cases starting with Continental Airlines and considers in detail the issue whether an agency may issue supplemental orders once an action fc>r judicial review has been filed. In Castillo, Rudolfo Castillo filed a writ 12