Samuel Amos v. David E. Tidwell and State of Alaska, Workers' Compensation Benefits Guaranty Fund

Summary

The court reversed the Commission’s decision because it improperly created a friendship-based exemption from workers’ compensation coverage, misapplied the productive/consumptive distinction, and failed to require adequate findings about whether Tidwell employed Amos in connection with a business or industry. The court also held that the Commission could not make or infer factual findings on issues the Board had not decided, including the possible application of statutory and regulatory exemptions. The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.