{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;} {\f36\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}WP TypographicSymbols{\*\falt Courier New};}{\f172\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;}{\f173\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;} {\f175\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f176\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f177\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);}{\f178\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);} {\f179\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f180\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255; \red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192; \red255\green255\blue255;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\* \ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{\*\cs15 \additive \sbasedon10 \ssemihidden footnote reference;}{ \s16\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext16 \styrsid5793902 header;}{\s17\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext17 \styrsid5793902 footer;}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid1602417\rsid5793902\rsid7283545\rsid9508377\rsid11875302}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6764;}{\info {\title IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\author lroberto}{\operator blake_r}{\creatim\yr2005\mo8\dy12\hr9\min5}{\revtim\yr2006\mo3\dy10\hr10\min17}{\version4}{\edmins2}{\nofpages8}{\nofwords2730}{\nofchars15561}{\*\company Superior Court of Guam} {\nofcharsws18255}{\vern16391}}\margl1440\margr1440\margb1080 \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\notabind\wraptrsp\transmf\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\truncatefontheight\subfontbysize\sprsbsp\wpjst\lytprtmet\hyphcaps0\horzdoc\dghspace120 \dgvspace120\dghorigin1701\dgvorigin1984\dghshow0\dgvshow3\jcompress\viewkind4\viewscale100\nolnhtadjtbl\rsidroot1602417 \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 { \insrsid1602417 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid1602417 \chftnsepc \par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid1602417 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid1602417 \chftnsepc \par }}\sectd \sbknone\linex0\headery1440\footery1080\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid1602417\sftnbj {\header \pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tqr\tx9360\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\i\fs20\insrsid1602417 Amerault v. Intelcom Support Serv., Inc.\tab }{\fs20\insrsid1602417 \tab Page }{\field{\*\fldinst {\fs20\insrsid1602417 PAGE }}{\fldrslt { \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid7283545 8}}}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 of 11 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid1602417 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl-19\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid7283545 {\shp{\*\shpinst\shpleft1440\shptop0\shpright10800\shpbottom19\shpfhdr1\shpbxpage\shpbxignore\shpbypara\shpbyignore\shpwr3\shpwrk0\shpfblwtxt1\shpz0\shplockanchor\shplid2049{\sp{\sn shapeType}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fFlipH}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFlipV}{\sv 0}} {\sp{\sn fillColor}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fillBackColor}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFilled}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn lineWidth}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fLine}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fShadow}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn posrelh}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fBehindDocument}{\sv 1}} {\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}}{\shprslt{\*\do\dobxpage\dobypara\dodhgt0\dprect\dpx1440\dpy0\dpxsize9360\dpysize19\dpfillfgcr0\dpfillfgcg0\dpfillfgcb0\dpfillbgcr0\dpfillbgcg0\dpfillbgcb0\dpfillpat1\dplinehollow}}}}{\insrsid1602417 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid1602417 \par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}} {\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8 \pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7283545 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\insrsid7283545 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7283545 {\insrsid7283545 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7283545 {\b\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 ROBERT H. AMERAULT,}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 \par }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Plaintiff-Appellant, \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7283545 {\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7283545 {\b\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 vs.}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7283545 {\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7283545 {\b\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 INTELCOM SUPPORT SERVICES, INC., A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION, LIBERTY MUTUAL SERVICES COMPANY, A MASSACHUSETTS CORPORATION DBA LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP, LIBERTY MUTUAL RISK SERVICES, A MASSACHUSETTS CORPORATION, AND DOES I THROUGH XX, AND BLACK CORPORATION, WH ITE CORPORATION, AND BLUE CORPORATION,}{\b\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Defendants-Appellees.}{\insrsid7283545 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7283545 {\insrsid7283545 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7283545 {\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Supreme Court Case No.: CVA03-007 \par Superior Court Case No.: CV0001-02}{\insrsid7283545 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7283545 {\insrsid7283545 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7283545 {\b\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 OPINION}{\insrsid7283545 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7283545 {\insrsid7283545 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7283545 {\b\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Filed: December 20, 2004}{\insrsid7283545 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7283545 {\insrsid7283545 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7283545 {\b\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Cite as:}{\b\insrsid7283545 }{\b\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 2004 GUAM 23}{\insrsid7283545 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7283545 {\insrsid7283545 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7283545 {\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam \par Argued and submitted on November 10, 2003 \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam}{\insrsid7283545 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7283545 {\insrsid7283545 \par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts11\trgaph120\trleft0\trftsWidth3\trwWidth9810\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3\tblrsid7283545 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr \brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx4680\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth5130\clshdrawnil \cellx9810\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid7283545 {\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 \par }{\ul\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellant}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 : \par Steven A. Zamsky, Esq. \par Zamsky Law Firm \par Suite 805, GCIC Bldg. \par 414 W. Soledad Avenue \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910 \par \cell \par }{\ul\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Appearing for Defendant-Appellee Intelcom}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 : \par Randall Todd Thompson, Esq. \par Mair, Mair, Spade & Thompson, PC \par Suite 801, Pacific News Building \par 238 Archbishop Flores Street \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910}{\insrsid7283545 \par \par }{\ul\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Appearing for Defendant-Appellee LMIC}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 : \par John B. Maher, Esq. \par Vernier & Maher, LLP \par 115 Hesler Place, Ground Floor \par Governor Joseph Flores Building \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910\cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 \trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts11\trgaph120\trleft0\trftsWidth3\trwWidth9810\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3\tblrsid7283545 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx4680\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth5130\clshdrawnil \cellx9810\row }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7283545 {\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7283545 {\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 BEFORE: FRANCES M. TYDINGCO-GATEWOOD, Chief Justice (Acting);}{\cs15\super\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid1602417 \chftn }{\insrsid1602417 }{\fs20\insrsid1602417 Chief Justice F. Philip Carbullido recused himself from this matter and thus Associate Justice Frances Tydingco-Gatewood, as senior member of the panel, serves as Acting Chief Justice herein.}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 JANET HEALY WEEKS and RICHARD H. BENSON, Justices }{\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Pro Tempore.}{\insrsid7283545 \par \par }{\b\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 WEEKS, J.:}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 \par \par }{\b\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 [1]}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 \tab Plaintiff-Appellant Robert H. Amerault (}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Amerault}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 ) appeals the entry of judgment from the court below following the trial court}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s dismissal of his case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Guam Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) on a motion submitted by Defendant-Appellees Intelcom Support Services, Inc., (}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Intelcom}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 ) and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 LMIC}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 ).}{\cs15\super\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid1602417 \chftn }{\insrsid1602417 }{\fs20\insrsid1602417 Intelcom and LMIC will be referred to collectively as }{\fs20\insrsid1602417 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 Appellees}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 herein.}{\insrsid1602417 }}}{ \insrsid7283545 }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 The trial court held that dismissal of Amerault}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s claims was required by the controlling precedent of the District Court of Guam}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s Appellate Division}{ \insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s decision in }{\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Pasmore v. Republic of Nauru (Guam), Inc.}{ \insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 , Civ. No. CV94-00069A, 1995 WL 604378 (D. Guam App. Div. Sept. 19, 1995), regarding the exclusivity provision of Guam}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s worker}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s compensation law codified at Chapter 9 of Title 22 of the Guam Code Annotated. Title 22 GCA }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 9101 }{\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 et seq. }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 We affirm the trial court}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s dismissal of Amerault}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s claims. \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7283545 {\b\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 I.}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7283545 {\b\insrsid7283545 \par }{\b\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 [2]}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 \tab Amerault was injured on November 1, 1993 in the course of his employment with Intelcom.}{\insrsid7283545 }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Following his injury, Amerault filed a claim with Guam}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s Worker}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s Compensation Commission (}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 WCC}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 ).}{\insrsid7283545 }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Intelcom began making payments to Amerault shortly after his injury through its worker}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s compensation insurance provider, LMIC, pending the issuance of a compensation order by the WCC. On February 26, 1996,}{\insrsid7283545 }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 although the substantive merits of Amerault}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s worker}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s compensation claim had not yet been heard, the WCC issued its first compensation order requiring Intelcom to continue providing medical treatment to Amerault. Intelcom did so through LMIC. \par \par }{\b\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 [3]}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 \tab On September 19, 1996 a hearing was held before the WCC regarding Amerault}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s claim. Amerault raised several issues regarding his difficulty in securing payment of his worker}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s compensation medical care benefits. On Oct ober 10, 1997 a second compensation order was issued by the WCC. The order addressed the medical care issues raised by Amerault and reiterated Intelcom}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s continued obligation to provide medical treatment to Amera ult as prescribed by law. Amerault did not seek further administrative enforcement of this order pursuant to sections 9115, 9119, 9122 or 9128 of Title 22 of the Guam Code Annotated. \par }{\b\insrsid7283545 \par }{\b\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 [4]}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 \tab On January 2, 2002 Amerault filed his complaint in the case at bar regarding Appellees}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 alleged failure to provide him with medical care as required by law.}{\insrsid7283545 }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Amerault alleged three causes of action, those being breach of statutory duty, negligence and bad faith. \par }{\b\insrsid7283545 \par }{\b\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 [5]}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 \tab Prior to filin g his complaint in the present case, Amerault filed a virtually identical federal lawsuit in the United States District Court of Guam against the same two defendants, based on federal diversity jurisdiction. }{\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Amerault v. Intelcom Support Serv., Inc.,}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 CV-99-00098 (D. Guam 1998). Thus the trial court there was charged with applying local law to the matter. Amerault}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s case was dismissed on two separate occasions by the federal court.}{\cs15\super\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid1602417 \chftn }{\insrsid1602417 }{\fs20\insrsid1602417 The federal court first dismissed Amerault}{ \fs20\insrsid1602417 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 s case on January 28, 2000 by granting a defense motion to dismiss similar to the motion granted by the trial court in the case at bar and holding that due to the exclusivity provision of the Guam}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 s worker}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 s compensation law it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Appellee Intelcom Support Services, Inc.}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 s, Supplemental Excerpts of Record (}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 SER}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 ) 18 Exhibit 1 (}{\i\fs20\insrsid1602417 Amerault v. Intelcom Support Serv., Inc., }{\fs20\insrsid1602417 CV-99-00098 (D. Guam 1998) (Order Granting Defendants}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 Motion to Dismiss (Jan. 28, 2000))). Amerault appealed the dismissal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the appellate court, without reaching the substantive merits of Amerault}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 s appeal, held that Amerault had not properly established diversity jurisdiction before the trial court. SER 18 Exhibit 2 (}{\i\fs20\insrsid1602417 Amerault v. Intelcom Support Serv., Inc.,}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 00-15420 (Memorandum (9th Cir. Aug. 3, 2001))). The appellate court remanded the case to the trial court to allow Amerault an opportunity to file an amended complaint regarding the jurisdictional flaw. }{\i\fs20\insrsid1602417 Id.}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 (Memorandum at 5). The appellate court did not address the trial court}{ \fs20\insrsid1602417 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 s dismissal of the case on substantive grounds since it determined that }{\fs20\insrsid1602417 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 [b]ecause the district court could not properly exercise diversity jurisdiction over Amerault}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 s action, it should not have reached the merits of Amerault}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 s claims.}{ \fs20\insrsid1602417 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 }{\i\fs20\insrsid1602417 Id. }{\fs20\insrsid1602417 Appellee LMIC avers in its responsive brief before us that upon remand to the District Court of Guam, Amerault failed to cure the jurisdiction flaw identified by the appellate court and the trial court thereafter dismissed his case for lack of jurisdiction on Appellees}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt \f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 motion. While District Court of Guam records supporting suc h a contention were not provided to this court in the present appeal, such is irrelevant to the present issues before us and we consider it no further. Thus, regardless of what became of Amerault}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 s claims upon remand to the federal trial court, we will consider persuasive the federal trial court}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 s prior well-documented analysis of the worker}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 s compensation exclusivity issue in granting the motion to dismiss. We further note that while the federal appellate court did not reach the substantive basis for the trial court}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 s dismissal of Amerault}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 s claims, in its remand order it commented that Amerault }{\fs20\insrsid1602417 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 should consider whether apparent exclusivity of the workers compensation scheme precludes any claim for relief.}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 }{ \i\fs20\insrsid1602417 Id. }{\fs20\insrsid1602417 (Memorandum at 5 n.3).}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Amerault then filed the present case in the Superior Court of Guam. \par }{\b\insrsid7283545 \par }{\b\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 [6]}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 \tab On March 8, 2002 Appellees submitted their motion to dismiss Amerault}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on worker}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s compensation exclusivity.}{\cs15\super\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid1602417 \chftn }{\insrsid1602417 }{\fs20\insrsid1602417 The exclusivity provision that is found within the worker}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 s compensation law states, in part, that }{\fs20\insrsid1602417 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 [t]he liability of an employer prescribed in }{\fs20\insrsid1602417 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 9104 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to the employee . . . or anyone otherwise entitled to recover damages from such employer at law or in admiralty on account of such injury or death.}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 Title 22 GCA }{\fs20\insrsid1602417 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 9106. Although not relevant in the present case, as discussed immediately below, it is generally accepted that when such exclusivity applies and a claimant establishes that the administrative remedies available un der the law have been exhausted or a claimant shows that pursuing such administrative remedies would be futile, an exception to exclusivity is established and the claimant}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 s case may therefore proceed at law. In apparent anticipation that Amerault would attempt to take advantage of this exception, Appellees also argued that the exception was not available to him in this case. However, Amerault did not attempt to invoke the exception, rather arguing that exclusivi t y does not apply to the claims he was pursuing at law and thus his case should be allowed to proceed. In this context, Amerault argues that since exclusivity does not apply to him, the administrative remedies available under the law also do not apply and therefore there was effectively nothing for him to exhaust. However, because we find herein that exclusivity applies to medical benefit claims such as Amerault}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 s, in order to take advantage of the futility or exhaustion exception to exclusivity a party in Amerault}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt \f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 s position must factually establish their eligibility for the exception. Because Amerault has made no attempt to do so, the futility or exhaustion exception is not available to him and we need consider it no further. }}} {\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 The motion was later processed and filed by the court on April 2, 2002. The motion was very similar to that first granted by the federal trial court prior to the appellate court}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s holding regarding the diversity jurisdiction issue. Amerault opposed the motion below. Oral argument was heard on February 19, 2003.}{ \insrsid7283545 }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 On March 28, 2003 the trial court issued its Decision and Order granting Appellees}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 motion to dismiss. A judgment dismissing the case was entered on the civil docket on April 16, 2003. Amerault filed his notice of appeal on April 28, 2003. \par }{\b\insrsid7283545 \par }{\b\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 [7]}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 \tab This appeal is timely under Rule 4(a) of the Guam Rules of Appellate Procedure which requires that an appeal be taken in a civil case within thirty (30) days from the entry of judgment on the civil docket. \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7283545 {\b\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 II.}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7283545 {\b\insrsid7283545 \par }{\b\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 [8]}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 \tab We have jurisdiction over this appeal from a final judgment pursuant to sections 3107 and 3108(a) of Title 7 of the Guam Code Annotated (1994). }{ \i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Gibbs v. Holmes}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 , 2001 Guam 11, }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 9. \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7283545 {\b\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 III.}{\insrsid1602417 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7283545 {\insrsid7283545\charrsid7283545 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7283545 {\b\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 [9]}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 \tab A trial court}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s decision granting a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is reviewed }{\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 de novo}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 .}{\insrsid7283545 }{ \i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Perez v. GHURA}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 , 2000 Guam 33, }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 9. Review of an interpretation of Guam}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s worker}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s compensation law is had }{\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 de novo}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 .}{\insrsid7283545 }{ \i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Gibbs}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 , 2001 Guam 11 at }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 12. \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7283545 {\b\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 IV.}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7283545 {\b\insrsid7283545 \par }{\b\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 [10]}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 \tab The issue before us is whether the exclusivity provision of Guam}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s worker}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s compensation law bars tort claims at law arising out of an alleged failure to provide medical care as required by the law. }{\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 See }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 22 GCA }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 9106, 9108. Amerault argues that his claims are not barred by exclusivity and asks this court to reverse the trial court, thereby allowing his claims to proceed at law. Amerault argues that the District Court}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s decision in }{\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Pasmore, }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 which bound the trial court but which is merely persuasive on this court, was wrongly decided and therefore should not be followed. Alternatively, Amerault argues that even if }{\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Pasmore }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 was correct at the time it was decided, recent court decisions establish a modern trend away from the holding in }{\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Pasmore }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 and support allowing his case to proceed at law. Amerault}{ \insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s arguments are unpersuasive.}{\cs15\super\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid1602417 \chftn }{\insrsid1602417 }{\fs20\insrsid1602417 Amerault}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 s breach of statutory duty, negligence and bad faith tort claims allegedly arise out of Appellees}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 failure to provide medical care as required by law. It is important to note at this juncture that Amerault}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 s claims are not based on intentional wrongdoing or conduct }{\fs20\insrsid1602417 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{ \fs20\insrsid1602417 so extreme and outrageous as to exceed all bounds of decency,}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 which courts interpreting a similar statutory scheme have held is required to allow an independent cause of action to proceed in the face of worker}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}} }{\fs20\insrsid1602417 s compensation exclusivity. }{\i\fs20\insrsid1602417 Burlew v. American Mut. Ins. Co.}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 , 472 N.E. 2d 682, 685 (N.Y. 1984) (In interpreting a worker}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 s compensation statute very similar to Guam}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 s, the highest court in New York held that a claimant must allege this level of conduct in order to avoid operation of the exclusivity provision). Since no such claims are made by Amerault, the }{\fs20\insrsid1602417 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 extreme and outrageous}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 exception is not available to him in the present case. Our analysis will be confined to whether the }{\i\fs20\insrsid1602417 Pasmore}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 court correctly applied the exclusivity provision of the worker}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 s compensation law to medical care claims such as Amerault}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 s and, if so, whether recent developments in the law support a divergence by this court from the }{\i\fs20\insrsid1602417 Pasmore}{\fs20\insrsid1602417 precedent. }}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 \par }{\b\insrsid7283545 \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7283545 {\b\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 A.\tab The }{\b\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Pasmore}{\b\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 precedent}{\insrsid7283545 }{ \insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7283545 {\b\insrsid7283545 \par }{\b\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 [11]}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 \tab Generally, decisions of the District Court of Guam}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s Appellate Division are binding on the Superior Court of Guam. }{\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 See Fajardo v. Liberty House Guam}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 , 2000 Guam 4, }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 17. Thus the trial court here correctly held that it was required to grant Appellees}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on the controlling precedent of }{\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Pasmore}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 . }{\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 See}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 }{\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Pasmore, }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 1995 WL 604378. \par However, as acknowledged by all parties, it is similarly settled that we are not so bound by }{\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Pasmore}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 . }{\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 See Quenga, }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 1997 Guam 6 at }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 13 n.4. As this court has stated, }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 [t]hough pre-existing precedent continues to operate until addressed by this Court, decisions of the federal courts are not controlling upon our construction of the law.}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 }{\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Sumitomo Const. Co. Ltd. v. Zhong Ye}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 , 1997 Guam 8 }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 6. }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 And while we will not disturb precedent that is }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 well established in law and well reasoned}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 , we clearly are within our authority to modify those interpretations previously addressed by federal courts.}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 }{\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Id.}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 (quoting }{\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 People of the Territory of Guam v. Dwayne S. Quenga}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 , CRA96-005, 7 n.4 (Sup. Ct. Guam, May 13, 1997)). Thus this court must only consider Appellate Division decisions as persuasive authority, although we note that the }{\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Sumitomo }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 and }{ \i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Quenga}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 courts elevated the weight of such }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 persuasive}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 status in stating that it would not deviate from such precedent if it was }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 we ll established in law and well reasoned,}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 }{\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Sumitomo}{ \insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 , 1997 Guam 8 at }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 6, or }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 unless reason supports such deviation,}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 }{\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Quenga, }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 1997 Guam 6 at }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 13 n.4. Amerault argues that a modern trend exists in the law allowing claims such as his to proceed at law rather than being barred by worker}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s compensation exclusivity. Appellees argue that no such trend exists. In so doing, Appellees thoroughly distinguish the cases cited by Amerault. We agree with Appellees and find no modern trend in the law supporting a d ivergence from the continued application of worker}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s compensation exclusivity to claims such as Amerault }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s.}{\insrsid7283545 }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Thus, in keeping with the approach articulated by this court in both }{\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Quenga}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 and }{\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Sumitomo}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 , because we find no sound reason to do so, and because we find that it is well reasoned and established in law, we do not disturb }{\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Pasmore}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 .}{\insrsid7283545 }{ \insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7283545 {\b\insrsid7283545 \par }\pard \qj \fi-720\li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid7283545 {\b\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 B.\tab }{\b\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Pasmore}{\b\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 correctly held that worker}{ \b\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\b\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s compensation exclusivity applies to medical care}{\insrsid7283545 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7283545 {\insrsid7283545\charrsid7283545 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7283545 {\b\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 [12]}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 \tab This court, in a recent consideration of the exclusivity provision of the worker}{ \insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s compensation law, has articulated the continued viability of the exclusivity provision, stating that }{ \insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 [i]f the employer has obtained the coverage prescribed by the statute then }{ \i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 the liability of the employer for compensation is exclusive and in place of all other liability}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 of such employer to the employee.}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7283545 }{\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Villalon v. Hawaiian Rock Prods., Inc.}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 , 2001 Guam 5,}{\insrsid7283545 }{ \insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 10 (emphasis added) (citing Title 22 GCA }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 9106 (1996)).}{\insrsid7283545 }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 This court also stated in }{\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Bondoc v. Worker}{ \i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s Comp. Comm}{\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 n}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 , 2000 Guam 6, }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}} }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 34: \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid7283545 {\insrsid7283545 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid7283545 {\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 In }{\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Frieze,}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 the plaintiff suffered an injury as a result of slipping on water that had collected on the stage on which she was performing. Claiming that she was an independent contractor, the plaintiff argued that she was entitled to compensation beyond that which the wo rker}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s compensation laws}{\insrsid7283545 }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 . . . provided. (Citation omitted.)}{\insrsid7283545 }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 The Superior Court disagreed.}{\insrsid7283545 }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Citing Guam Government Code section 37002(i) [now codified as 22 GCA }{ \insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 9103(i) (1996)], the court explicitly found that }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 any person who has entered into the employment of or works under contract of service ... with an employer}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 was a statutory employee whose relief was limited to only what the Act provided.}{\insrsid7283545 }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 (footnote omitted.)}{\insrsid7283545 }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 The court also stated that }{\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 [t]he law is crystalline that under these sections, [plaintiff] is an employee for the purpose of worker's compensation and may not seek relief elsewhere . . . .}{\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7283545 {\insrsid7283545\charrsid7283545 \par }{\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Bondoc v. Worker}{\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s Comp. Comm}{ \i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 n}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 , 2000 Guam 6 at}{\insrsid7283545 }{ \insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 34 (quoting }{\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Frieze v. Sandcastle, Inc.,}{ \insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 CV0139-94, p. 4 (Sup. Ct. Guam, Aug. 1, 1994) (emphasis added))).}{\insrsid7283545 }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Amerault argues, however, that the exclusivity provision does not apply to claims based on an employer}{ \insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s alleged fa}{\insrsid7283545 ilure to provide medical care.}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 \par }{\b\insrsid7283545 \par }{\b\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 [13]}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 \tab In }{\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Pasmore}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 , the trial court held that exclusivity barred the employee}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s bad faith claim from proceeding at law. SER 18 Attachment A11-A31 (}{\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Pasmore v. Republic of Nauru (Guam), Inc.}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 , CC314-88 (Sup. Ct. Guam, Aug. 23, 1989 (Decision and Order))). The District Court of Guam}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s Appellate Division affirmed the trial court, finding the trial court}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s decision regarding the application of exclusivity to the employee}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s bad faith claim regarding the non-payment of bills for medical care }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 legally sound}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 since exhaustion of administrative remedies was not shown by Pasmore. SER 18, p. A31 }{ \i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Pasmore v. Republic of Nauru (Guam), Inc.}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 , Civ. No. CV94-00069A, 1995 WL 604378 at **3 (D. Guam App. Div. Sept. 19, 1995)). In this case, Amerault argues that }{ \i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Pasmore}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 was incorrect in applying worker}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s compensation exclusivity to claims related to an employer}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s alleged failure to properly provide medical treatment as required by worker}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s compensation laws. In support of this, he argues that because the exclusivity provision specifically states that it applies to an employer}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s liability for }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 compensation,}{ \insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 and because payments for medical care are not considered compensation under the worker}{ \insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s compensation statutory scheme, the exclusivity provision does not apply to claims related to such medical payments. \par \par }{\b\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 [14]}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 \tab In determining the plain meaning of a statutory provision, we look to the meaning of the entire statutory scheme containing the provision for guidance.}{\insrsid7283545 }{ \insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 In cases involving statutory construction, the plain language of a statute must be the starting point.}{ \insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 }{\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 In re Request of Governor Camacho Relative to Interpretation and Application of Section 11 of Organic Act of Guam}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 , 2003 Guam 16, }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 17 (quoting }{\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Aguon v. Gutierrez}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 , 2002 Guam 14, }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 6 (citations omitted)).}{\insrsid7283545 }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 [I]n determining legislative intent, a statute should be read as a whole,}{ \insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 and therefore, we are to }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 construe each section in conjunction with other sections.}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 }{\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Id.}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 (quoting }{ \i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Sumitomo v. Gov}{\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 t of Guam}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 , 2001 Guam 23, }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 17). Section 9103 of Title 22 of the Guam Code Annotated, entitled }{ \insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Definitions,}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 defines compensation in part as }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 the money allowance payable to an employee or to his dependents as provided for in this Title.}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Title 22 GCA }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 9103(f). Section 9104, entitled }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Coverage,}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 states, }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 [c]ompensation shall be payable under this Title in case of disability or death of an employee . . . .}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Title 22 GCA }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 9104(a).}{\insrsid7283545 }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Section 9105, entitled }{ \insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Liability for Compensation,}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 states in part that }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 [e]very employer shall be liable for and shall secure payment to his employees of the compensation payable under }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 9108, 9109, and 9110.}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Title 22 GCA }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 9105(a). Section 9108 addresses medical care, stating that }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 [t]he employer shall furnish such medical, surgical, and other attendance or treatment, nurse, hospital service, medicine, crutches, and apparatus for such period as the nature of the injury or the process of recovery may require.}{ \insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 22 GCA }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 9108(a). Similarly, section 9109 addresses disability and section 9110 addresses death benefits. 22 GCA }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 9109, 9110. Section 9106, entitled }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Exclusiveness of Liability,}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 states that }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 [t]he liability of an employer prescribed in }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 9104 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to the employee.}{ \insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Title 22 GCA }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 9106.}{\insrsid1602417 \par }{\insrsid7283545\charrsid7283545 \par }{\b\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 [15]}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 \tab We find that the plain meaning of exclusivity provis ion found in section 9106 is clear when considered within the entire statutory scheme. When coverage is provided under section 9104, an employer must pay compensation to an employee. 22 GCA }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 9104(a). The very next section, 9105,}{\insrsid7283545 }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 requires that every employer must secure payment of the compensation payable under sections 9108, 9109 and 9110 for his employees. 22 GCA }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 9105. This includes medical care, which is provided for by section 9108. 22 GCA }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 9108. Based on these various sections, when read together, we find that the exclusive }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 liability of an employer}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 under section 9106 is for the coverage required by section 9105 when provided for by section 9104. We therefore find that the only rational interpretation of section 9105 is that }{\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 when coverage exists under section 9104 }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 every employer is required to provide compensation for his employees for the medical care required by section 9108. Amerault}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s attempt to read medical care out of the term }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 compensation}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 is not consistent with the statutory scheme or the purpose of the WCL and thus is without merit. Furthermore, our interpretation is consistent with other court decisions considering similar issues against the backdrop of similar statutory schemes.}{ \insrsid7283545 }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 \par }{\b\insrsid7283545 \par }{\b\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 [16]}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 \tab A prior decision of the District Court of Guam}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s Appellate Division noted that }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 in all material respects, t he [New York and Guam] statutes are identical.}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 }{\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Shim v. Vert Construction Co.}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 , 1991 WL 255832 (D. Guam App. Div. Nov. 18, 1991). Subsequent to that case, Guam courts have considered courts of other states interpr eting statutes similar to laws of Guam to be persuasive authority. Regarding Guam}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s worker}{ \insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s compensation laws, this court has confirmed that we }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 find guidance in the case law of those jurisdictions that have adopted worker}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s compensation statutes that are substantially similar to Guam}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s statutes.}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 }{ \i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Gibbs}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 , 2001 Guam 11 at }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 15. Similarly, Guam}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s worker}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s compensation laws are substantially similar to the federal Longshore and Harbor Workers}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Compensation Act (}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 LHWCA}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 ) which itself was modeled after the New York statutory scheme regarding workers}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 compensation. }{ \i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Spencer-Kellogg & Sons, Inc. v. Willard}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 , 190 F.2d 830, 832 n.1 (3rd Cir. 1951). Therefore, we consider case law interpreting provisions of the LHWCA that are similar to provisions of Guam }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s worker}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s compensation law similarly persuasive. }{\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Gibbs}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 , 2001 Guam 11 at }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 15.}{\insrsid1602417 \par }{\insrsid7283545\charrsid7283545 \par }{\b\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 [17]}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 \tab Both Guam}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s worker}{ \insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s compensation law and the LHWCA define the term }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 compensation}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 as }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 the money allowance payable to an employee or to his dependents.}{ \insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Section 9103(f) of Title 22 GCA; Section 902(12) of Title 33 U.S.C. Alth ough neither statutory scheme defines the term }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 benefits,}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 courts interpreting the LHWCA have held that medical benefits are included in compensation for enforcement purposes. In }{ \i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Lazarus v. Chevron USA, Inc.}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 , 958 F.2d 1297, 1300 (5th Cir. 1992), the court held that for the purposes of enforcement proceedings under the LHWCA, medical benefits were part of compensation.}{\insrsid7283545 }{\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Lazarus}{ \insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 , 958 F.2d at 1300. In so holding, the }{\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Lazarus}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 court noted that the structure of the LHWCA supported such an interpretation; }{ \insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Congress must have intended the term }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 compensation}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 to encompass the provision of medical benefits.}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 }{\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Id}{ \insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 . Similarly, in interpreting the LHWCA, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals later cited to }{\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Lazarus}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 in stating that }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Congress did not intend to distinguish between medical and disability benefits for the purposes of the enforceability of awards.}{ \insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 }{\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Hunt v. Director O.W.C.P.}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 , 999 F.2d 419, 422 (9th Cir. 1993). Thus, when the enforcement of compensation awards is considered by courts under the LHWCA, such courts treat medical benefits, like disability benefits,}{\insrsid7283545 }{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 as a component of compensation. Guam}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s worker}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s compensation law similarly requires an employer to provide medical care to an employee for whom coverage exists. Thus, we adopt the conclusion reached by the above courts under a similar statutory scheme and hold that medical care is i ncluded in the compensation for which exclusive liability is provided by Section 9106 of the worker}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s compensation law. \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7283545 {\b\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 IV.}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7283545 {\b\insrsid7283545 \par }{\b\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 [18]}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 \tab Accordingly, upon our }{\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 de novo}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 review of the trial court}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 s decision below, we conclude that the trial court properly applied the case of }{\i\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 Pasmore v. Republic of Nauru (Guam), Inc.}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 , Civ. No. CV94-00069A, 1995 WL 604378 (D. Guam App. Div. Sept. 19, 1995). We therefore }{\b\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 AFFIRM.}{\insrsid1602417\charrsid7283545 \par }}