Compensability and Coverage Determination
Compensability asks whether an injury is covered - that is, whether it arose out of and in the course of employment. The two prongs are often tested separately: arising out of refers to the causal connection to work, while in the course of refers to time, place, and circumstances. Alaska also recognizes the positional risk and increased risk doctrines in close cases, and the going and coming rule with its exceptions (e.g., travel required by the employer, special errands).
Coverage determinations also involve: whether the worker is an employee versus independent contractor; whether the employer elected coverage or waived it; whether the injury falls within an exclusion (intentional self-injury, intoxication, willful misconduct, fighting not connected to work); and whether a pre-existing condition is aggravated by work. Occupational disease claims have their own timing and causation analysis.
Traps: assuming any injury at work is compensable (the idiopathic fall problem); confusing aggravation with new injury; ignoring the intoxication defense and its causation requirement; and treating a contractor label as controlling when the facts show an employment relationship.
Worked example: A worker slips on a wet floor caused by a medical condition (idiopathic) with no workplace hazard - the injury may not arise out of employment. But if the floor was wet because of a workplace spill, the same fall is likely compensable. The cause of the risk matters.
Rule of thumb: ask what risk caused the injury - if the risk is personal to the worker and not increased by the workplace, compensability is doubtful.