Greenwade v. State Acc. Ins. Fund, 77-4833
| Decision Date | 27 August 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-4833,77-4833 |
| Citation | 598 P.2d 1265,41 Or.App. 697 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Compensation of Wilson C. GREENWADE, Claimant, Petitioner, v. STATE ACCIDENT INSURANCE FUND, Respondent. ; CA 12509. |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Dan O'Leary, Portland, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Pozzi, Wilson, Atchison, Kahn & O'Leary, Portland.
Darrell E. Bewley, Associate Counsel, State Accident Insurance Fund, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were K. R. Maloney, Chief Counsel, and James A. Blevins, Chief Trial Counsel, State Accident Insurance Fund, Salem, and Stephen D. Brown, State Accident Insurance Fund, Medford.
Before SCHWAB, C. J., and RICHARDSON and ROBERTS, JJ.
The issue in this workers' compensation appeal is whether a stipulated order of settlement of a disputed claim should be set aside.
The claim arose on June 16, 1975, when claimant suffered a stroke while at work in employer's plywood plant. A worker's report of injury form was filed but on August 13, 1975, the Fund denied the claim on the basis that claimant's injury was not aggravated by nor related to his employment activities. Claimant then contacted his attorney and on August 25 requested a hearing on the denial of compensability.
Prior to hearing, the attorney consulted with claimant, his wife and physician. The attorney concluded after these discussions that the medical testimony needed to establish the connection between claimant's injury and his on-the-job activities was not present. After assessing the case, the attorney recommended settlement of the disputed claim.
On January 6, 1976, claimant and the Fund presented a stipulated settlement to a referee. The settlement provided, Inter alia, claimant was to be paid $2,000, that the Fund did not expressly or by implication accept responsibility for claimant's injury and that the denial of compensability would remain in effect forever. The referee found there was a bona fide dispute regarding compensability of the claim and approved the stipulated settlement. Claimant has incurred approximately $6,000 in medical expenses.
Subsequent to the settlement, claimant's treating physician, after further tests, concluded claimant's injury was work related. This was contrary to his initial opinion. On June 19, 1977, claimant, through his new attorney, made a demand on the Fund for temporary total disability compensation. Claimant asserted that the new medical evidence demonstrated his stroke was causally related to his employment. The Fund denied the claim and claimant requested a hearing. The principal issue at the hearing was whether the stipulated settlement should be set aside and compensation awarded. The referee and the Workers' Compensation Board denied the claim on the basis of the prior settlement. Claimant appeals.
Claimant makes three contentions: first, that the settlement should be set aside because the rights released in terms of compensation for the injury are disproportionate to the settlement received; secondly, the settlement should be invalidated because claimant was incompetent at the time he signed the stipulation; and third, the order accepting the settlement is invalid because it did not contain a recital of claimant's appeal rights. We discuss these questions in the order presented.
Claimant first argues that settlements made pursuant to ORS 656.289(4) are reviewable and may be set aside if the settlement recovery is grossly disproportionate to the rights of compensation relinquished. The essence of the argument is that claimant's injuries are substantial and that he has incurred medical expenses and wage loss in excess of the $1,500 recovered in the settlement. 1 The argument is based on the Supreme Court's decision in Schulz v. Compensation Department, 252 Or. 211, 448 P.2d 551 (1968).
In Schulz the claimant and the department entered into a stipulation regarding the amount of compensation. There was no dispute that the injury was compensable. Claimant filed a request for review of the order setting compensation in the stipulated amount. He contended that when the stipulation was made he misunderstood it; that he had not been released to return to work; that due to the injury his medical expenses were in excess of the amount received by the stipulation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sopko v. C & R Transfer Co., Inc.
...(Ky.1973); Utah Fuel Co. v. Industrial Comm'n. of Utah, 108 Utah 346, 159 P.2d 877, 879 (1945). But see Greenwade v. State Acc. Ins. Fund, 41 Or.App. 697, 598 P.2d 1265, 1267 (1979); City of Anaheim v. Workers' Comp.App. Bd., 128 Cal.App.3d 200, 180 Cal.Rptr. 132, 134 (1982). Workers might ......
-
Padilla v. Industrial Com'n of Colorado, 83SC64
...City of Anaheim v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, 128 Cal.App.3d 200, 180 Cal.Rptr. 132 (1982); Greenwade v. State Accident Insurance Fund, 41 Or.App. 697, 598 P.2d 1265 (1979); Luersen v. Transamerica Insurance Co., 550 S.W.2d 171 (Tex.Civ.App.1977). The purposes, structure and langu......
-
Adams v. Transamerica Ins. Group
...252 Or. 211, 215, 448 P.2d 551 (1968); cf. Seeber v. Marlette Homes, Inc., 30 Or.App. 233, 566 P.2d 926 (1977); Greenwade v. SAIF, 41 Or.App. 697, 598 P.2d 1265, rev. den. 288 Or. 173 (1979). In fact, the "Joint Petition and Order of Dismissal of Hearing Upon Settlement of Bona Fide Dispute......
-
Simmons v. Lane Mass Transit Dist.
...of a denied claim under ORS 656.289(4), and the applicable rule requires a DCS to achieve that result. SAIF relies on Greenwade v. SAIF, 41 Or.App. 697, 598 P.2d 1265, rev. den. 288 Or. 173 (1979), to support its argument that a stipulation is authorized when a claim remains denied. In Gree......