Notice of accident from worker
Source:
Section 656.265 — Notice of accident from worker, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors656.html.
Notes of Decisions
To establish employer knowledge, claimant needs to establish only employer knowledge of injury, not knowledge claim would result. Baldwin v. Thatcher Construction Co., 49 Or App 421, 619 P2d 682 (1980); Hayes-Godt v. Scott Wetzel Services, 71 Or App 175, 691 P2d 919 (1984), Sup Ct review denied
Knowledge of injury must be sufficient to alert employer of possibility of workers’ compensation claim. Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Mock, 95 Or App 1, 768 P2d 401 (1989), Sup Ct review denied
Where claimant was employee, stockholder and manager of corporate employer, claimant satisfied injury notice requirement by notifying employer, and claim was not barred notwithstanding failure of employer to notify insurer of claim. Barney’s Karts, Inc. v. Vance, 110 Or App 62, 821 P2d 422 (1991)
Requirement that worker give employer written notice of “when and where and how” injury occurred is satisfied if written information, viewed as whole, provides enough detail about when, where and how injury occurred to put employer on notice that worker may have sustained compensable injury. Vsetecka v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 337 Or 502, 98 P3d 1116 (2004)
Notice consisting of report or statement secured from worker need not be in written form. Godfrey v. Fred Meyer Stores, 202 Or App 673, 124 P3d 621 (2005), Sup Ct review denied
There is no requirement under this section that claimant must present medical evidence to establish “good cause” for failure to give timely notice; it is for Workers’ Compensation Board to decide whether board is persuaded by evidence that is in record, regardless of if record includes medical evidence. Lopez v. SAIF, 281 Or App 679, 388 P3d 728 (2016)
As used in this section, “compensable injury” means condition that results from accident. Brown v. SAIF, 361 Or 241, 391 P3d 773 (2017)
To support good cause for late notice of work injury, claimant’s subjective belief as to employer’s response to injury report must be objectively reasonable. Kuralt v. SAIF, 290 Or App 479, 415 P3d 1077 (2018)
As used in this section, term “good cause” is delegative term that calls for agency discretion; thus, Workers’ Compensation Board did not abuse its discretion when board applied objective “reasonable worker standard” to determine whether workers’ compensation claimant had established “good cause” for failing to provide employer with notice of work-related accident within 90 days after accident. Estrada v. Federal Express Corp. 298 Or App 111, 445 P3d 1276 (2019), Sup Ct review denied
Employee provided timely notice under this section by orally informing employer of accident within one week of accident; provision that bars claim unless “notice is given within one year” is good-cause exception to ordinary 90-day deadline for providing to employer actual notice of accident, not deadline to provide formal notice to employer of filed claim. Double Tree Hotel v. Ansarinezhad, 316 Or App 51, 504 P3d 41 (2021)
Law Review Citations
32 WLR 217 (1996)
Up to date