to information" argument to support allocating to the employee the.burden of showing evidence of loss of earnings). 11 . See Veco, Inc. v. Wolfer, 693 P.2d 865, 869-70 (Alaska 1985) (where presumption rebutted, claimant must prove each element by a preponderance of the evidence); see also Brunke, 714 P.2d at 801 (placing burden upon the employee to prove loss of earning capacity); 8 Arthur Larson, Larson’s Worker’s Compensation Law § 80.33(a), 15-910 to 929 (1998) (noting that the employee usually has the burden of proving the extent of his injury or disability). 12 . Cf. Zimin v. Zimin, 837 P.2d 118, 122 (Alaska 1992) ("It is the duty of the parties, not the court, to ensure that all necessaiy evidence is presented at trial.”); Hartland v. Hartland, 777 P.2d 636, 640 (Alaska 1989) (<HOLDING>). 13 . (3d ed.) (1988). 14 . See AS
holding that a party who fails to provide sufficient evidence at trial for a valuation cannot object to the resulting valuation on the basis of inadequate evidence holding that defendant forfeits right to have issue considered on appeal when he fails to object to misconduct at trial holding that a party who fails to provide sufficient evidence at trial cannot object to the resulting determination on the basis of inadequate evidence holding that a party who fails to introduce evidence of the specific value of the marital residence is estopped from appealing the distribution based on that absence of evidence holding that when a district court fails to provide reasons for imposing special conditions and the defendant fails to object we review for plain error