City of Grants Pass v. Hamelin
Decision Date | 02 May 2007 |
Docket Number | 0405396; A129285. |
Citation | 212 Or. App. 414,157 P.3d 1206 |
Parties | In the Matter of the Compensation of Deborah L. Hamelin, Claimant. CITY OF GRANTS PASS, Petitioner, v. Deborah L. HAMELIN, Respondent. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
David L. Johnstone, Portland, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was VavRosky MacColl Olson P.C.
James O. Marsh, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Carney, Buckley, Hays & Marsh.
Before HASELTON, Presiding Judge, and ARMSTRONG, Judge, and DEITS, Judge pro tempore.
Employer seeks judicial review of an order of the Workers' Compensation Board holding that it must pay compensation for conditions that it mistakenly accepted in an updated notice of acceptance issued at the time of claim closure. The facts are undisputed. We review the board's order for errors of law and affirm.
In 2003, employer was directed by an administrative law judge (ALJ) to accept claimant's "undefined" bilateral upper extremity condition, and thereafter, in April and November 2003, it accepted bilateral wrist tendinitis. In June 2004, employer denied claimant's request for acceptance of additional conditions:
On July 6, 2004, employer issued an "Updated Notice of Acceptance at Closure," stating, "This letter is to notify you we have accepted your claim as disabling for the following condition(s): thumb extensor tendinitis, DeQuervain's disease, myofascial pain syndrome." The parties have stipulated that the July 6 notice was issued by mistake and represents a scrivener's error and not a "considered retraction" of the prior denial of the listed conditions. On July 22, 2004, employer issued a second "Updated Notice of Acceptance at Closure," notifying claimant that "we have accepted your claim as disabling for the following condition(s): bilateral wrist tendinitis." The July 22 notice stated that the July 6 notice "is withdrawn in its entirety and is replaced by this closure." The award stated in the July 6 notice was unchanged, however, and was limited to disability for the left and right wrists. Claimant requested reconsideration, contending that employer was bound by the July 6 notice of acceptance. Employer asserted that it may rescind its erroneous updated notice of acceptance. The board held that employer was bound by its July 6, 2004, acceptance, determining, in essence, that an updated notice of acceptance is a full acceptance, subject to the same procedures and limitations applicable to all notices of acceptance, including the restrictions stated in ORS 656.262(6)(a) on revocation of acceptance.
The first question that we address is whether an updated notice of acceptance issued pursuant to ORS 656.262(7)(c) is an "acceptance" within the meaning of ORS 656.262(6)(a), subject to the limitations for revocation stated in that paragraph. ORS 656.262(6)(a) states the requirements for the issuance of a notice of acceptance of a claim and provides, in part:
When a claim has been accepted pursuant to ORS 656.262(6)(a), there are only two grounds on which it may be revoked: (1) fraud, misrepresentation, or other illegal activity by the worker; and (2) later-obtained evidence showing that the claim is not compensable or is not the responsibility of the accepting insurer. Employer concedes that this case does not present circumstances that authorize a revocation of acceptance under ORS 656.262(6)(a).
When a claim qualifies for claim closure, ORS 656.262(7)(c) states the requirement for the issuance of an updated notice of acceptance:
Employer's July 6 and July 22 updated notices of acceptance were purportedly issued pursuant to that provision. In employer's view, notices issued pursuant to ORS 656.262(7)(c) are not acceptances of a claim under ORS 656.262(6)(a); rather, they are simply status reports concerning what conditions have been accepted at the time of closure. As such, employer contends, an updated notice of acceptance issued pursuant to ORS 656.262(7)(c) does not have the same effect or consequence and is not subject to the same limitations for revocation as a notice of acceptance issued pursuant to ORS 656.262(6)(a). Claimant contends that the board correctly concluded that an updated notice of acceptance under ORS 656.262(7)(c) is an acceptance, subject to the same procedures and limitations applicable to all notices of acceptance, including the restrictions stated in ORS 656.262(6)(a) on revocation of acceptance.
We agree with claimant that an updated notice of acceptance is just that—a notice of acceptance. What distinguishes it from an initial...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Shearer's Foods v. Hoffnagle (In re Hoffnagle)
...the insurer or self-insured employer shall not revoke acceptance except as provided in this section."); City of Grants Pass v. Hamelin , 212 Or.App. 414, 417, 157 P.3d 1206 (2007) ( "When a claim has been accepted pursuant to ORS 656.262(6)(a), there are only two grounds on which it may be ......