Boise Cascade Corp. v. Hasslen

• Decision Date: 04 September 1991
• Citation: 816 P.2d 1181,108 Or.App. 605
• Parties: In the Matter of the Compensation of Linda J. Hasslen, Claimant. BOISE CASCADE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. Linda J. HASSLEN, Respondent. WCB 88-20402; CA A65824.
• Court: Oregon Court of Appeals

Page 1181

816 P.2d 1181

108 Or.App. 605

In the Matter of the Compensation of Linda J. Hasslen, Claimant BOISE CASCADE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. Linda J. HASSLEN, Respondent.

WCB 88-20402; CA A65824.

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Argued and Submitted May 29, 1991.

Decided Sept. 4, 1991.

Adam T. Stamper, Medford, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were Kimberly D. Wallan and Cowling & Heysell, Medford.

Robert Wollheim, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Welch, Bruun & Green, Portland.

Before WARREN, P.J., and RIGGS and EDMONDS, JJ.

WARREN, Presiding Judge.

Employer seeks review of a Workers' Compensation Board order that set aside two denials on the ground that employer had improperly denied prospective medical benefits. We reverse and remand.

Claimant worked for employer as a green chain offbearer. She filed a claim for low back pain, which employer accepted and for which she received an award of ten percent unscheduled permanent partial disability. Claimant continued to receive treatment for her low back condition and submitted medical bills for payment by employer. Employer paid those bills until October 25, 1988, when employer issued a denial:

"Medical investigation has resulted in a determination that your current condition requiring medical treatment is unrelated to the acute lumbar strain sustained for which Boise Cascade Corporation accepted responsibility. * * * Medical treatment for your current condition should more appropriately be provided under any group health insurance you may have." (Emphasis supplied.)

On November 15, 1988, employer issued a second denial:

"The employer must respectfully deny responsibility for your current treatment needs and/or any disability as compensably related to this injury or your work activity at the employer." (Emphasis supplied.)

Claimant requested a hearing.

The referee set aside the denials, finding that the medical services were reasonable and necessary for treatment of claimant's industrial injury. Employer requested review, and the Board affirmed the referee, holding that, because the denials were not addressed to specific medical services rendered or claimed, they were prospective and therefore invalid under Evanite Fiber Corp. v. Striplin, 99 Or.App. 353, 781 P.2d 1262 (1989). The Board did not reach the question whether the claimed medical services were reasonable and necessary to treat claimant's industrial injury.

The only question that we need address is whether employer's denials were procedurally adequate. ¹ We have held that an employer can issue a denial either for a specific unpaid claim or for a current claimed need for treatment. Green Thumb v. Basl, 106 Or.App. 98, 806 P.2d 186 (1991). However, an employer may not deny its future responsibility relating to an accepted claim. The first denial in this case, issued on October 25, asserts that claimant's "current condition" is unrelated to her industrial injury. That was a valid denial under Green Thumb v. Basl, supra. Claiman...