Duties and powers to carry out workers’ compensation and occupational safety laws
- rules
Source:
Section 656.726 — Duties and powers to carry out workers’ compensation and occupational safety laws; rules, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors656.html.
Notes of Decisions
Workers’ Compensation Board had authority to require, by rule, prompt compliance with claimant’s request for documents and to consider noncompliance as unreasonable delay within meaning of ORS 656.262 (8). Morgan v. Stimson Lumber Co., 288 Or 595, 607 P2d 150 (1980)
Director of Department of Insurance and Finance had authority to adopt rule regulating payment to physicians for deposition testimony. Black v. Dept. of Insurance and Finance, 108 Or App 437, 816 P2d 652 (1991), Sup Ct review denied
Standards for evaluating disabilities adopted by Department of Insurance and Finance which gave no value to factors of age, education, training and adaptability when worker has returned to his “usual and customary work” were not inconsistent with ORS 656.214. Harrison v. Taylor Lumbering & Treating, Inc., 111 Or App 325, 826 P2d 75 (1992)
Where disability is not addressed by existing standards, Director of Department of Consumer and Business Services is required to stay further proceedings and adopt temporary rules. Gallino v. Courtesy Pontiac-Buick-GMC, 124 Or App 538, 863 P2d 530 (1993)
Workers’ Compensation Board has authority to remand order to Director of Department of Consumer and Business Services where disability requires development of temporary rule. Gallino v. Courtesy Pontiac-Buick-GMC, 124 Or App 538, 863 P2d 530 (1993)
Where one or more factors to be considered exceed zero, assignment of zero value to factors taken as whole does not fulfill requirement for modifying impairment. Carroll v. Boise Cascade Corp., 138 Or App 610, 910 P2d 1111 (1996)
Requirement that criterion for evaluation of disability be “permanent impairment” as modified by age, education and adaptability factors does not require that all impairments, including chronic conditions, be rated prior to modification. Schultz v. Springfield Forest Products, 151 Or App 727, 951 P2d 169 (1997)
Workers’ Compensation Board has authority to review validity of rule of Director of Department of Consumer and Business Services to determine whether rule is consistent with statute. Schultz v. Springfield Forest Products, 151 Or App 727, 951 P2d 169 (1997)
Temporary rule adopted to address disability not addressed by existing standards must be directed to claimant’s particular impairment, not category of impairment generally. Shubert v. Blue Chips, 330 Or 554, 9 P3d 114 (2000)
Temporary rule that assigns zero value for claimant’s impairment qualifies as standard that accommodates impairment. May v. Multnomah County Animal Control, 177 Or App 218, 33 P3d 387 (2001)
For purposes of determining whether impairment is only factor to consider in determining worker’s disability, when worker is terminated for cause, availability is not factor to be considered in determining worker’s disability. Suchi v. SAIF, 238 Or App 48, 241 P3d 1174 (2010), Sup Ct review denied
For purposes of determining whether impairment is only factor to consider in determining worker’s disability, end of seasonal employment constitutes termination of employment unless claimant proffers evidence that claimant would have been entitled to return to work after seasonal layoff. Suchi v. SAIF, 238 Or App 48, 241 P3d 1174 (2010), Sup Ct review denied
Worker who has been released for work by attending physician or nurse practitioner, but who is unable to return to work for cause not related to injury, is not entitled to work disability. Suchi v. SAIF, 238 Or App 48, 241 P3d 1174 (2010), Sup Ct review denied
Law Review Citations
32 WLR 217 (1996)
Up to date