Attorney not entitled to fees under quantum meruit where client not notified of possibility of such recovery

Law Reporter, Dec 2001

Parris-Eastlake v. State, 26 P.3d 1099 (Alaska 2001).

The Alaska Supreme Court held that an attorney who claimed drug addiction as an injury may recover workers' compensation benefits.

Here, an attorney developed headaches and neck and back pain. She was prescribed narcotic painkillers, to which she subsequently became addicted. She entered a detoxification program and resigned from her job. She then filed a workers' compensation claim for work-related injuries, including, among other claims, her drug addiction. The workers' compensation board rejected the claim, finding that, under state law, a claimant cannot recover workers' compensation benefits for injuries proximately caused by the influence of drugs used by the claimant. The board concluded that the attorney's addiction came about because of her drug abuse and, thus, she could not recover benefits.

Reversing, the court disagreed with the board that the state law provision prohibiting benefits for injuries proximately caused by being under the influence of drugs applies to any injury proximately caused by the misuse of prescription drugs, including addiction. Rather, the court found, when addiction itself is the injury claimed, state law does not bar the claim. Focusing on legislative intent, the court construed the phrase "under the influence" in tandem with the provision's use of "intoxication." In both cases, the question is whether the worker was impaired as a result of alcohol or drugs, the court explained.

The court rejected the board's finding that being under the influence of drugs includes drug-seeking behavior. For an injury to be proximately caused by an employee being under the influence of drugs, the court said, the employee's mental or physical faculties must be impaired by the use of drugs, and the impaired condition must proximately cause the injury. For example, a worker whose judgment or coordination becomes impaired by drugs and who consequently suffers injury due to that impairment would be barred from recovering benefits, the court said.

The court found that here, although the attorney's drug use and drug-seeking behavior contributed to her addiction, the only physical or mental impairment she suffered as a result of her drug use was the addiction. Because the addiction is the injury for which she seeks compensation, rather than the proximate cause of her injury, state law does not bar her from claiming her employment caused or contributed to her addiction, the court concluded.

Accordingly, the court remanded the case for further proceedings.

Attorney's Counsel

Dale W. House, Anchorage, Alaska

Brad E. Ambarian, Anchorage, Alaska