Hearing rights and procedure
- rules
- impeachment evidence
- use of standards for evaluation of disability
Source:
Section 656.283 — Hearing rights and procedure; rules; impeachment evidence; use of standards for evaluation of disability, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors656.html.
Notes of Decisions
Letter that did not specifically set out claimant’s address was nonetheless adequate request for hearing. Burkholder v. SAIF, 11 Or App 334, 502 P2d 1394 (1972)
Medical reports prepared by physician not available for cross-examination at hearing are admissible. Critofaro v. SAIF, 19 Or App 272, 527 P2d 412 (1974)
Claimant may request hearing on initial disability determination notwithstanding enrollment in ongoing vocational rehabilitation program. Minor v. Delta Truck Lines, 43 Or App 29, 602 P2d 288 (1979), Sup Ct review denied
Where claimant requested hearing on or about same date he filed claim and did not renew request after claim was denied, request on sole question of whether claim should be accepted was premature and therefore ineffective. Syphers v. K-W Logging, Inc., 51 Or App 769, 627 P2d 24 (1981), Sup Ct review denied
Court of Appeals properly relied on exhibit that was marked but not admitted as evidence where referee considered exhibit. Rivera v. R & S Nursery, 69 Or App 281, 684 P2d 1250 (1984)
“Lord Mansfield’s Rule” that, for establishing paternity, non-access of married party may not be testified to by the married parties, should not be applied in workers’ compensation hearings to exclude or ignore relevant evidence. Amos v. SAIF, 72 Or App 145, 694 P2d 998 (1985)
Because acceptance or denial of claim is not duty of noncomplying employer, employer could request hearing on compensability of claim without issuing denial. Horgen v. Martinez, 101 Or App 396, 790 P2d 1195 (1990)
Workers’ Compensation Board has authority to award attorney fees for legal services provided to client during director’s administrative review of dispute regarding vocational assistance. SAIF v. Severson, 105 Or App 67, 803 P2d 1203 (1990), modified 109 Or App 136, 817 P2d 1352 (1991)
Request for hearing is not jurisdictional, so failure of employer to file written request for hearing on particular issue was not preclusive where no objection was made at hearing. Salter v. SAIF, 108 Or App 717, 816 P2d 1208 (1991)
Request for hearing must be referable to particular denial. Guerra v. SAIF, 111 Or App 579, 826 P2d 1034 (1992)
Where Department of Insurance and Finance order on reconsideration was invalid, referee still had jurisdiction to review order. Pacheco-Gonzalez v. SAIF, 123 Or App 312, 860 P2d 822 (1993)
Referee has no authority to remand claim to Department of Insurance and Finance. Pacheco-Gonzalez v. SAIF, 123 Or App 312, 860 P2d 822 (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
Correct process is for director to informally investigate and issue order; then referee conducts hearing, develops record and decides based on facts in record whether director’s decision survives review; then board reviews based on record developed by referee. Colclasure v. Wash. Co. School Dist. No. 48-J, 317 Or 526, 857 P2d 126 (1993)
Physician request under ORS 656.245 for approval of noncompensable type of palliative care does not raise “question concerning a claim.” Hathaway v. Health Future Enterprises, 320 Or 383, 884 P2d 549 (1994); Nicholson v. Salem Area Transit, 320 Or 391, 884 P2d 864 (1994)
Requirement that evidence at appeal level be limited to evidence presented at reconsideration conditions ORS 656.287 right to introduce evidence at hearing. Rogue Valley Medical Center v. McClearen, 152 Or App 239, 952 P2d 1048 (1998), Sup Ct review denied
For mandatory reconsideration under ORS 656.268 to preclude further review, matter that claimant objects to must be manifest in notice of closure. Venetucci v. Metro, 155 Or App 559, 964 P2d 1090 (1998)
Issue that did not exist at time of reconsideration may be raised for first time at hearing. Crowder v. Alumaflex, 163 Or App 143, 986 P2d 1269 (1999)
Although worker retains burden of proof of disability on appeal, burden of identifying and establishing error of appealed decision rests on party seeking modification. Marvin Wood Products v. Callow, 171 Or App 175, 14 P3d 686 (2000)
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)
Where witness testimony is type that generally does not involve issues of witness veracity or credibility, claimant does not have due process right to cross-examine witness. Logsdon v. SAIF, 181 Or App 317, 45 P3d 990 (2002), aff’d on other grounds, 336 Or 349, 84 P3d 119 (2004)
Same types of nonverified indicators of impairment that qualify as objective findings for purposes of determining compensability qualify as objective findings for purposes of determining extent of permanent disability. SAIF v. Drury, 202 Or App 14, 121 P3d 664 (2005), Sup Ct review denied
Person signing request for hearing “on behalf of” claimant need not be attorney. Havi Group LP v. Fyock, 204 Or App 558, 131 P3d 793 (2006)
Personal representative acting on behalf of deceased worker’s estate lacks standing to challenge claim resolution. Cato v. Alcoa-Reynolds Metals Co., 210 Or App 721, 152 P3d 981 (2007), Sup Ct review denied
Law Review Citations
32 WLR 217 (1996)
Up to date