We Represent Injured Workers

We are committed to fighting for Alaskans injured at work

Chancy Croft is the most experienced lawyer in Alaska workers’ compensation history.

Chancy Croft is the most experienced lawyer in Alaska workers' compensation history. He started practicing exclusively in this area when he retired from the Alaska State Senate in 1978. Over the last 37 years, he has represented thousands of injured workers resulting in an estimated 200 plus published decisions of the Alaska Workers' Compensation Board.

Peek v. Alaska Pacific Assurance and SKW/Clinton

855 P.2d 415 (Alaska 1993)
This case established that the "last injurious exposure" can be used as a defense against the previous employer.

Cole v. Ketchikan Pulp

850 P.2d 642 (Alaska 1993)
This case won benefits for the widow of an injured worker who died before he could sign the settlement of his claim.

Alaska Public Interest Research Group v. State

167 P.3d 27 (Alaska 2007)
Chancy challenged the constitutionality of the new Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission. While the court upheld the Commission, the challenge was important because Chancy correctly predicted that the Commission would be biased against and a disaster for injured workers.

Croft v. Pan Alaska Drilling

820 P.2d 1064 (Alaska 1991)
This case established that employers have no right to recover any benefits paid to injured workers, even attorney fee awards.

Egemo v. Egemo Construction Company

998 P.2d 434 (Alaska 2000)
Worker injured in 1981 but kept working and did not file a claim. This case established that injured worker’s time to file claim runs from disablement not injury date.

Harp v. ARCO Alaska, Inc.

831 P.2d 352 (Alaska 1992)
This case established the rule that an employer must have “substantial evidence” to controvert a claim and ruled that the injured workers was entitled to a penalty for bad faith controversion.

Fields v. Doyon Drilling

4FA-94-2790CI (Alaska Superior Court Nov. 21, 1995)
Superior Court decision established the principle that missing reemployment deadlines does not mean injured worker loses right to be reemployed.

Sokolowski v. Best Western Golden Lion Hotel

813 P.2d 286 (Alaska 1991)
Won compensation for a worker crossing the street to get to work, establishing the "special hazard" exception to the "coming and going" rule.

Irby v. Fairbanks Gold Mining, Inc.

203 P.3d 1138 (Alaska 2009)
Worker drowned on the job but his body was never found. The insurance company tried to allege that the family waited too long to file the claim, but Chancy won compensation for the widow and children.

Underwater Construction, Inc. v. Shirley

884 P.2d 156 (Alaska 1994) and Summers v. Korobkin Construction, 814 P.2d 1369
These cases established that an injured worker has a right to bring a case to hearing and get a board determination of compensability even if the insurance company is paying benefits. This is important because after a board determination, the insurance company cannot arbitrarily deny benefits at a later date.

Fairbanks North Star Borough v. Rogers and Babler

747 P.2d 528 (Alaska 1987)
This case established that a permanent aggravation is compensable if it produces disability "at this time, or in this way, or to this degree".

Eric Croft continues the legacy of public service and defending the rights of injured workers.

Eric started working with his father representing injured workers in 2010 after a career in the Alaska House of Representatives. He has over 25 published decisions before the Alaska Workers' Compensation Board. Eric has represented injured workers in three cases before the Alaska Supreme Court, all three victories.

Municipality of Anchorage v. Adamson

301 P.3d 569 (Alaska 2013)
Case established that an injured worker who wins before the Board deserves time loss and medical benefits on appeal unless the employer can meet the higher standard of “likelihood of success on the merits.”

Adamson v. Municipality of Anchorage

333 P.3d 5 (Alaska 2014)
Case established the rules for the new firefighter presumption, including that the injured firefighter need only show substantial compliance with the examination requirements and exposure to substances "associated" with the specific carcinogens. The defense cannot avoid responsibility by trying to contradict the legislative determination that firefighting might not cause the specific cancer.

Harris v. Millennium Hotel

330 P.3d 330 (Alaska 2014)
Only workers’ compensation case in the United States to award benefits to a same sex couple.

The Croft Law Office:
We Represent Injured Workers

We are committed to fighting for Alaskans injured at work.
If you would like us to help, please complete the intake packet.