Columbia Forest Products v. Woolner
Decision Date | 31 October 2001 |
Citation | 177 Or. App. 639,34 P.3d 1203 |
Parties | In the Matter of the Compensation of Bonnie J. Woolner, Claimant. COLUMBIA FOREST PRODUCTS, Petitioner, v. Bonnie J. WOOLNER, Respondent. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Karen O'Kasey, Portland, argued the cause for petitioner. With her on the briefs were Jean Ohman Back and Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt.
Mustafa T. Kasubhai argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent.
Before LANDAU, Presiding Judge, and BREWER and SCHUMAN, Judges.
Employer seeks review of an order of the Workers' Compensation Board overturning employer's current condition denial. The primary question on review is whether an employer may issue a preclosure claim denial under ORS 656.262(7)(b)1 for a "combined condition" if its earlier acceptance did not expressly identify the claim as one for a combined condition. We reverse and remand.
We state the facts as the Board found them, supplemented with undisputed evidence in the record. Claimant injured her neck and right shoulder at work on May 29, 1996. She had a preexisting condition, bilateral multidirectional instability, which combined with the work-related injury to require medical treatment. Dr. Fowler subsequently performed surgery on claimant's right shoulder, and employer's insurer accepted a claim for "multi-directional instability, right shoulder and cervical strain."2 On March 31, 1998, Fowler indicated that claimant's shoulder condition was medically stationary. On November 25, employer issued a preclosure current condition denial that stated:
On January 4, 1999, employer closed the claim. Claimant requested a hearing, challenging the denial. The administrative law judge (ALJ) affirmed the denial:
The Board also awarded claimant attorney fees of $2,000.
On review, employer assigns error first to the Board's determination that employer did not accept a combined condition. Employer contends that the uncontroverted evidence showed that claimant's multidirectional instability was, in fact, a preexisting condition, and that, after surgery, the workplace injury ceased to be the major contributing cause of claimant's need for treatment. Therefore, it argues, it accepted a combined condition, and its preclosure denial was proper under ORS 656.262(7)(b). Claimant responds that: (1) ORS 656.262(6)(b)(A)3 requires an employer to "specify what conditions are compensable" in its notice of acceptance; (2) employer's notice of acceptance did not state explicitly that it accepted a combined condition; and (3) employer's denial based on a combined condition under ORS 656.262(7)(b) was therefore improper as a matter of law.
The undisputed medical evidence established that claimant suffered from a combined condition. However, after expressly adopting the ALJ's finding of fact that "a pre-existing condition * * * combined with injury to require medical treatment," the Board rejected the ALJ's conclusion that employer had accepted a combined condition. In a single sentence the Board explained that "the employer expressly accepted `multidirectional instability' of the right shoulder, but it did not accept a `combined condition.'" The Board cited no particular evidence in support of that determination.
The scope of an acceptance is a question of fact. See, e.g., SAIF v. Dobbs, 172 Or.App. 446, 451, 19 P.3d 932,
adhered to as mod. on recons 173 Or.App. 599, 23 P.3d 987 (2001); Granner v. Fairview Center, 147 Or. App. 406, 935 P.2d 1252 (1997); SAIF v. Tull, 113 Or.App. 449, 454, 832 P.2d 1271 (1992). Accordingly, we review the Board's determination that employer did not accept a combined condition for substantial evidence. ORS 183.482(8)(c). Employer cites Blamires v. Clean Pak Systems, Inc., 171 Or.App. 263, 15 P.3d 101 (2000), for the proposition that an acceptance of a combined condition is not required to include the specific words "combined condition." In Blamires, the employer issued, in the following order, (1) an acceptance that did not mention a combined condition; (2) a denial under ORS 656.262(7)(b) in reliance on the existence of a combined condition; and (3) an express acceptance of the combined condition. The Board upheld the denial on the basis of the employer's express acceptance of the combined condition. Citing Croman Corp. v. Serrano, 163 Or.App. 136, 986 P.2d 1253 (1999), we reversed:
Blamires, 171 Or.App. at 267, 15 P.3d 101 (emphasis in original).
We remanded the issue to the Board to make a finding on that issue, despite the fact that the words "combined condition" did not appear in the initial acceptance. Id.
Employer argues that Blamires held, in effect, that no "magic words" are required to establish an acceptance of a combined condition. Claimant responds that Blamires is distinguishable, because in that case, the Board made no determination regarding whether employer had accepted a combined condition, whereas in this case, the Board expressly decided that employer had not accepted a combined condition. Claimant relies on Bauman v. SAIF, 295 Or. 788, 670 P.2d 1027 (1983), and Tattoo v. Barrett Business Service, 118 Or.App. 348, 847 P.2d 872 (1993), for the proposition that employer is bound by the express language of its notice of acceptance, which, in this case, merely accepted "multidirectional instability, right shoulder and cervical strain."
In Bauman, the employer accepted a claim and paid benefits for three years. However, when the claimant attempted to reopen his claim for aggravation, the employer reversed its position and denied the original claim. The Supreme Court held the employer to its original acceptance:
In Tattoo, the claimant sought payment for chiropractic care allegedly necessitated by an injury. The employer issued a denial, which stated that 118 Or.App. at 350, 847 P.2d 872. At a hearing on claimant's claim, the employer's claims examiner testified that she meant the denial to cover past treatment and treatment into the future and that she did not believe it would be necessary to issue subsequent denials for future treatment. Id. at 351, 847 P.2d 872. On review, the claimant contended that the examiner's testimony showed that the denial of chiropractic care was impermissibly prospective. We disagreed, stating that "[w]e hold that employers are bound by the express language of their denials and the testimony of the claims examiner here is irrelevant." Id. at 351-52, 847 P.2d 872.
Both Bauman and Tattoo stand for the principle that an employer may not accept a condition and later assert a position that contradicts the express language of its acceptance. In this case, however, claimant does not contend that employer is asserting a position that contradicts the express terms of its acceptance. Claimant does not deny that her "multidirectional instability" preexisted her...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wise v. Brooks Const. Services
...470, 477 (2000) (same) (citing Frank v. A & L Insulation, 256 Neb. 898, 594 N.W.2d 586 (1999)); Columbia Forest Products v. Woolner, 177 Or.App. 639, 646, 34 P.3d 1203, 1207-07 (2001) (holding "in other workers' compensation contests, we have held that evidence need not consist of `magic wo......
- Arlington Ed. Assn. v. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 3
-
Scott v. Sports Auth., Inc. (In re Comp. of Scott)
...80, 85, 304 P.3d 46 (2013) ; SAIF v. Tull , 113 Or.App. 449, 454, 832 P.2d 1271 (1992) (en banc); Columbia Forest Products v. Woolner , 177 Or.App. 639, 34 P.3d 1203 (2001). Citing the Supreme Court's opinion in Johnson v. Spectra Physics , 303 Or. 49, 733 P.2d 1367 (1987), among other case......
-
Hutchings v. Amerigas Propane (In re Hutchings), 1003960, 1003489
...Finally, there is no statute that prescribes a particular manner for acceptance of a combined condition. Columbia Forest Products v. Woolner, 177 Or.App. 639, 646, 34 P.3d 1203 (2001). Accordingly, we do not view the statutory scheme as requiring the board to limit the employer's ability to......