Claim closure
- termination of temporary total disability benefits
- reconsideration of closure
- medical arbiter to make findings of impairment for reconsideration
- credit or offset for fraudulently obtained or overpaid benefits
- rules
Amended by HB 4138
Effective since January 1, 2023
Relating to workers’ compensation benefits; creating new provisions; and amending ORS 656.262 and 656.268.
Source:
Section 656.268 — Claim closure; termination of temporary total disability benefits; reconsideration of closure; medical arbiter to make findings of impairment for reconsideration; credit or offset for fraudulently obtained or overpaid benefits; rules, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors656.html
.
Notes of Decisions
Employer has burden of proof at redetermination stage to show improvement in claimant’s condition. Bentley v. SAIF, 38 Or App 473, 590 P2d 746 (1979)
Legislature did not intend claimant’s appeal rights should prematurely terminate when aggravation rights expire, and where claim is opened during time claimant still has appeal rights, closure of claim carries with it right of appeal whenever issued. Coombs v. SAIF, 39 Or App 293, 592 P2d 242 (1979)
Requirement for disclosure of medical reports to claimant is not intended as limitation on power of board to order discovery. Morgan v. Stimson Lumber Co., 288 Or 595, 607 P2d 150 (1980)
Because claim was reopened during time claimant had right to appeal, closing order was not on board’s own motion and was therefore appealable. Carter v. SAIF, 52 Or App 1027, 630 P2d 397 (1981)
After vocational rehabilitation, claimant’s disability may be determined to be more or less than previously supposed even absent change in medical condition. Hanna v. SAIF, 65 Or App 649, 672 P2d 67 (1983)
District court had no jurisdiction over case regarding overpayment of workers’ compensation benefits. SAIF v. Harris, 66 Or App 165, 672 P2d 1384 (1983)
Where insurer’s notice to claimant contained all information to be provided in notice of closure except for fact it was notice of closure, claim remained in open status. Davison v. SAIF, 80 Or App 541, 723 P2d 331 (1986), modified 82 Or App 546, 728 P2d 582 (1986)
Requirement that party seek hearing within one year of issuance of determination order is not tolled pending claimant’s appeal from board order finding claim non-compensable, because extent of disability is independent determination. Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Roller, 85 Or App 500, 737 P2d 625 (1987)
Subsequent determination by Court of Appeals that claim was not compensable did not alter employer’s processing obligations during period prior to determination order. Weyerhaeuser Co. v. McCullough, 92 Or App 204, 757 P2d 871 (1988)
Where claimant is initially injured or becomes disabled as result of occupational disease while in work force, claimant is entitled to temporary total disability benefits until medically stationary and released for work, even though claimant voluntarily withdrew from work force prior to closure of claim. Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Kepford, 100 Or App 410, 786 P2d 745 (1990), Sup Ct review denied; Forshee & Langley Logging v. Peckham, 100 Or App 717, 788 P2d 487 (1990)
Where determination order was pending review and had not become final, worker could request hearing on benefit calculation error. Drews v. EBI Companies, 310 Or 134, 795 P2d 531 (1990); Hammon Stage Line v. Stinson, 123 Or App 418, 859 P2d 1180 (1993)
Employer must continue to pay temporary disability benefits for period after date claimant would otherwise have been laid off. International Paper Co. v. Huntley, 106 Or App 107, 806 P2d 188 (1991)
SAIF may seek review of order re-examining award of permanent total disability. Lehman v. SAIF, 107 Or App 207, 811 P2d 924 (1991)
Claimant who fails to report for physician approved modified work in order to participate in labor dispute has refused wage earning employment and is not entitled to continued temporary total disability benefits. Roseburg Forest Products v. Wilson, 110 Or App 72, 821 P2d 426 (1991)
Referee has subject matter jurisdiction over case even if request for hearing is subject to denial as untimely. SAIF v. Roles, 111 Or App 597, 826 P2d 1039 (1992), Sup Ct review denied
Claimant is not entitled to overpayment of temporary disability benefits for period between medically stationary date and claim closure. Lebanon Plywood v. Seiber, 113 Or App 651, 833 P2d 1367 (1992); Santos v. Caryall Transport, 152 Or App 322, 954 P2d 187 (1998)
Where claimant’s attending physician was unable to verify claimant’s inability to work, insurer or self-insured employer may suspend payment of temporary total disability, but claimant’s entitlement to temporary total disability does not terminate. Sandoval v. Crystal Pine, 118 Or App 640, 848 P2d 1224 (1993), Sup Ct review denied; Cameron v. Norco Contract Service, 128 Or App 422, 875 P2d 1196 (1994), Sup Ct review denied
Where redetermination order reducing disability is issued before payment under original award becomes due, redetermination effectively reduces award and excuses employer duty to pay original award. SAIF v. Sweeney, 121 Or App 142, 854 P2d 487 (1993)
Where payment under original award becomes due prior to issuance of redetermination order, original award obligation must be paid prior to redetermination date. SAIF v. Sweeney, 121 Or App 142, 854 P2d 487 (1993)
Workers’ compensation insurance carrier can offset amount of temporary disability overpaid to claimant by deducting amount from permanent disability award. Cravens v. SAIF Corp., 121 Or App 443, 855 P2d 1129 (1993)
Order to pay penalty for late payment to temporary total disability (TTD) is not final determination of TTD rate for purposes of claim preclusion analysis of res judicata. Cravens v. SAIF Corp., 121 Or App 443, 855 P2d 1129 (1993)
Where claimant had accepted employer’s offer of modified work, employer lockout of claimant during labor dispute effectively withdrew offer of modified work and claimant was entitled to temporary disability payments for period of lockout. Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Hanks, 122 Or App 582, 857 P2d 911 (1993), Sup Ct review denied
“No subsequent medical evidence” means medical evidence subsequent to medical arbiter’s report, not medical arbiter’s report. Pacheco-Gonzalez v. SAIF, 123 Or App 312, 860 P2d 822 (1993); Wickstrom v. Norpac Foods, Inc., 125 Or App 520, 865 P2d 491 (1993)
Where no medical arbiter was appointed, medical report prepared after issuance of reconsideration order was admissible at hearing before referee. Scheller v. Holly House, 125 Or App 454, 865 P2d 475 (1993), Sup Ct review denied
Whether worker is “20 percent disabled” is based on combined effect of all scheduled and unscheduled disability arising out of claim. Nero v. City of Tualatin, 127 Or App 458, 873 P2d 390 (1994), Sup Ct review denied. But see SAIF v. Cline, 135 Or App 155, 897 P2d 1172 (1995), Sup Ct review denied
Appointment of medical arbiter does not make prior impairment evaluations by other than attending physician admissible. Roseburg Forest Products v. Owen, 129 Or App 442, 879 P2d 1317 (1994)
Challenge to zero impairment rating was disagreement with impairment used. Sedgwick James of Oregon v. Hendrix, 130 Or App 564, 883 P2d 226 (1994)
Penalty awarded at reconsideration for disability above threshold level should not be sustained if disability is later reduced to be below threshold level. Mast v. Cardinal Services, Inc., 132 Or App 108, 887 P2d 814 (1994)
Where claimant refused examination by appointed medical arbitrator, submission of findings by medical arbitrator were not prerequisite to preclusion of subsequent medical evidence of impairment. Jackson v. Tuality Community Hospital, 132 Or App 182, 888 P2d 35 (1994), Sup Ct review denied
Where party fails to request reconsideration of determination order, issue of determination order propriety may not be raised at subsequent hearing. Duncan v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp., 133 Or App 605, 894 P2d 477 (1995)
Where determination order not challenged by party is changed by reconsideration order, at subsequent hearing where either party challenges propriety of change, determination order defines minimum or maximum award allowable. Duncan v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp., 133 Or App 605, 894 P2d 477 (1995)
Determination whether claimant is 20 percent disabled for purposes of award of attorney fees requires that impairment of body part be translated into measurement of total worker disability. SAIF v. Cline, 135 Or App 155, 897 P2d 1172 (1995), Sup Ct review denied
Reconsideration hearing held upon request of one party did not prevent later timely request by other party for additional reconsideration. Guardado v. J. R. Simplot Co., 137 Or App 95, 902 P2d 1225 (1995)
Reports “not prepared in time” for reconsideration proceeding do not include supplemental or clarifying medical arbiter reports. Tinh Xuan Pham Auto v. Bourgo, 143 Or App 73, 922 P2d 1255 (1996)
Notice of closure sets forth claimant’s award of benefits and precludes subsequent challenge to erroneous benefits awarded. Bowman v. Esam, Inc., 145 Or App 46, 928 P2d 359 (1996)
Medical evidence provided before claimant has become medically stationary may be considered for purpose of determining extent of disability. Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Englestadter, 145 Or App 330, 930 P2d 264 (1996)
Education factor used in determining disability must be rated as of reconsideration date. Baggett v. The Boeing Co., 150 Or App 269, 945 P2d 663 (1997)
Order denying reconsideration is reconsideration order for which party may request hearing before Workers’ Compensation Board under ORS 656.283. Jordan v. Brazier Forest Products, 152 Or App 15, 952 P2d 560 (1998)
1997 amendment imposing limit of one reconsideration proceeding did not apply retroactively. Franzen v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 154 Or App 503, 962 P2d 729 (1998)
For mandatory reconsideration to preclude further review under ORS 656.283, matter that claimant objects to must be manifest in notice of closure. Venetucci v. Metro, 155 Or App 559, 964 P2d 1090 (1998)
Cases where benefits have been paid in full are subject to requirement that disability be redetermined following training. SAIF v. Coburn, 159 Or App 413, 977 P2d 412 (1999), Sup Ct review denied
Cases where original determination order or notice of closure has become final are subject to requirement that disability be redetermined following training. SAIF v. Coburn, 159 Or App 413, 977 P2d 412 (1999), Sup Ct review denied
Where redetermination of disability following training results in reduced disability rating, amounts correctly paid according to earlier rating do not result in “overpayment.” SAIF v. Coburn, 159 Or App 413, 977 P2d 412 (1999), Sup Ct review denied
Deadline for issuance of reconsideration order does not prevent withdrawal of timely order and post-deadline issuance of amended order. Liberty Northwest Insurance Corp. v. Allenby, 166 Or App 331, 999 P2d 503 (2000), Sup Ct review denied; Boydston v. Liberty Northwest Insurance Corp., 166 Or App 336, 999 P2d 503 (2000), Sup Ct review denied
Under 1997 version of statute, closing examination by attending physician was not prerequisite to insurer closing of claim. Ball v. The Halton Company, 167 Or App 468, 6 P3d 1106 (2000), Sup Ct review denied
Under 1997 version of statute, insurer may not deny consequential claim without closing underlying accepted claim. Roy v. McCormack Pacific Co., 171 Or App 526, 17 P3d 550 (2000), modified 172 Or App 663, 19 P3d 999 (2001)
Claimant seeking permanent total disability benefits is entitled to opportunity for oral evidentiary hearing at some meaningful stage in appeal process because limiting record on reconsideration to written evidence denies claimant due process by preventing meaningful opportunity to meet burden of proof and persuasion. Koskela v. Willamette Industries, Inc., 331 Or 362, 15 P3d 548 (2000)
Unless direct medical sequela to original accepted condition has been specifically denied, both condition and its sequelae must be medically stationary at time of claim closure. Manley v. SAIF, 181 Or App 431, 45 P3d 1027 (2002)
Where continuing compensability of combined condition is denied because otherwise compensable injury is no longer major contributing cause of combined condition, underlying accepted injury remains compensable and must be properly closed. South Lane County School District #45-J3 v. Arms, 186 Or App 361, 62 P3d 882 (2003), Sup Ct review denied
Permanent partial disability award that has become final remains substantive entitlement during period following completion of training and prior to redetermination of permanent disability compensation. Holdren v. SAIF, 186 Or App 443, 63 P3d 1238 (2003)
Worker who accepts offer of modified employment may not subsequently claim right to refuse accepted employment because it is not with employer at injury or not at work site of employer at injury. Hammock v. SAIF, 198 Or App 480, 108 P3d 1185 (2005)
Penalty is not available where employer fails to issue either notice of claim closure or notice of refusal to close. Red Robin International v. Dombrosky, 207 Or App 476, 142 P3d 493 (2006)
For purposes of calculating penalty for failure to close claim, compensation “due” claimant is amount awarded in notice of closure, reduced by allowable offset for overpayment. Johnson v. SAIF Corp., 219 Or App 82, 180 P3d 1237 (2008)
Penalties may be assessed against insurer or self-insured employer multiple times during processing of single claim if claimant satisfies predicates for assessment of penalty in each instance. Cayton v. Safelite Glass Corporation, 232 Or App 454, 222 P3d 1134 (2009)
Insurer or self-insured employer who is penalized for refusing to close claim cannot be liable under other similar statute for same act of refusal. Cayton v. Safelite Glass Corporation, 232 Or App 454, 222 P3d 1134 (2009)
Additional information submitted during reconsideration proceeding is not relevant to whether sufficient information existed for insurer to close claim in first instance. Sanchez v. SAIF, 242 Or App 339, 255 P3d 592 (2011), Sup Ct review denied
To preserve issue that Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services prematurely closed claim for hearing, claimant must raise issue on reconsideration. Pressing Matters v. Carr, 248 Or App 41, 273 P3d 170 (2012)
Although statutory scheme provides separate review tracks for claim denials and notice of closure, statutes allow for duration of temporary total disability benefits to be subject to review on reconsideration of notice of closure. SAIF v. Otwell, 251 Or App 704, 284 P3d 581 (2012)
Read with ORS 656.340, worker may receive training-related temporary disability compensation for indefinite period of time as long as worker remains enrolled and actively engaged in training. Intel Corp. v. Batchler, 267 Or App 782, 341 P3d 837 (2014)
For purposes of calculating penalty for unreasonable notice of closure under this section, penalty to be awarded shall be based on total amount of compensation due claimant at time of unreasonable notice of closure and not merely on increased amount of impairment award that was determined to be owed to claimant. Williams v. SAIF Corp., 291 Or App 328, 420 P3d 26 (2018)
Employers obtain benefit of exception to general rule:B1.that employer pays compensation for full measure of workers’ permanent impairment if impairment “as a whole” is caused in material part by compensable injury:B1.only by issuing denial of “combined condition” and following process that legislature has specifically provided for reducing worker’s permanent partial disability. Caren v. Providence Health Sys. Or. (In re Caren), 365 Or 466, 446 P3d 67 (2019); Johnson v. SAIF, 307 Or App 1, 475 P3d 465 (2020), Sup Ct review allowed
Where factual ambiguities existed in record about extent of claimant’s impairment and workers’ compensation insurer closed claimant’s claim, insurer was subject to statutory penalty because insurer had obligation to seek clarification and additional information prior to claim closure and in doing so could reasonably have known extent of claimant’s impairment. Alvarado-Depineda v. SAIF, 306 Or App 423, 474 P3d 430 (2020)
COMPLETED CITATIONS: Bivens v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 6 Or App 100, 487 P2d 119 (1971)
Attorney General Opinions
Applicability of “medically stationary” provision to workers injured before effective date of amendment, (1978) Vol 39, p 124
Law Review Citations
27 WLR 105 (1991); 32 WLR 217 (1996)