Actions and orders regarding matters concerning claim and matters other than matters concerning claim
- authority of director and board
- administrative and judicial review
- rules
Source:
Section 656.704 — Actions and orders regarding matters concerning claim and matters other than matters concerning claim; authority of director and board; administrative and judicial review; rules, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors656.html.
Notes of Decisions
Board has no jurisdiction over dispute between carriers not affecting claimant’s right to compensation. Renolds-Croft v. Bill Morrison Co., 55 Or App 487, 638 P2d 495 (1982)
Board had jurisdiction to consider carriers’ requests that Board order repayment of or offset for monies erroneously sent to claimant. SAIF v. Zorich, 94 Or App 661, 766 P2d 1053 (1989)
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
Workers’ Compensation Board conclusion that naturopathic physician acted beyond scope of license was within board’s authority for purposes of determining whether treatment compensable. Stiehl v. Timber Products, 115 Or App 651, 839 P2d 755 (1992)
Determination whether employer or worker is subject to Act is not reviewable by board because worker’s right to receive compensation is not directly in issue. Lankford v. Copeland, 141 Or App 138, 917 P2d 55 (1996)
Dispute over medical services related to compensable claim is to be decided by Director of Department of Consumer and Business Services, regardless of when or how dispute first arose. Roseburg Forest Products v. Langley, 156 Or App 454, 965 P2d 477 (1998)
Where issue changes from one within jurisdiction of Workers’ Compensation Board to one outside jurisdiction of board, transferal of case to Director of Department of Consumer and Business Services is not available and case must be dismissed. SAIF v. Shipley, 326 Or 557, 955 P2d 244 (1998)
Where employer challenges both causal relationship between medical services and accepted claim and medical appropriateness of services, both issues must be resolved favorably to claimant for services to be compensable. AIG Claim Services, Inc. v. Cole, 205 Or App 170, 133 P3d 357 (2006), Sup Ct review denied
On reconsideration of notice of closure, Director of Department of Consumer and Business Services may determine amount of disability compensation to which claimant is entitled. Martin v. SAIF, 247 Or App 377, 270 P3d 296 (2011)
Director of Department of Consumer and Business Services is not authorized to determine whether factual dispute exists concerning causal relationship between claimant’s medical services and accepted injury and may not deny transfer of issue to Workers’ Compensation Board based on determination. Daugherty v. SAIF, 258 Or App 512, 310 P3d 713 (2013)
Up to date