SAIF v. Ledin
| Decision Date | 02 May 2001 |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Compensation of Larry L. Ledin, Claimant. SAIF CORPORATION and Leo Carignan, Petitioners, v. Larry L. LEDIN, Respondent. |
Julene Marian Quinn argued the cause and filed the brief for petitioners.
Gordon Gannicott, Portland argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Hollander, Lebenbaum & Gannicott.
Before EDMONDS, Presiding Judge, and KISTLER and SCHUMAN, Judges.
SAIF seeks review of a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board that required it to reopen claimant's claim to process a new medical condition rather than treating that new condition as a claim within the Board's own motion jurisdiction. In Johansen v. SAIF, 158 Or.App. 672, 976 P.2d 84, on recons. 160 Or.App. 579, 987 P.2d 524, rev. den. 329 Or. 527, 994 P.2d 129 (1999), we held that under ORS 656.262(7)(a) a claim for a new medical condition is subject to the processing requirements of ORS 656.262(4)(a). The statute expressly provides that a claimant may bring such a new medical condition claim at any time, without regard to any other provision of the Workers' Compensation Law. It is not relevant to a new medical condition claim that the claimant's aggravation rights have expired or that the Board might exercise its own motion jurisdiction.
SAIF argues that ORS 656.262(7)(c), which provides in part that, "[i]f a condition is found compensable after claim closure, the insurer * * * shall reopen the claim for processing regarding that condition," refers only to conditions that existed at the time of the original claim closure, which necessarily excludes a claim for a new medical condition. That interpretation is inconsistent with our holding in Johansen. When read in light of ORS 656.262(7)(a) as construed in Johansen, the statute requires an insurer to reopen a closed claim to process a claim for a new medical condition.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
SAIF v. Azorr
...court has since held that an employer is required to reopen an original claim under circumstances such as these. In SAIF v. Ledin, 174 Or.App. 61, 23 P.3d 411 (2001), this court expressly held that the rule of Johansen was to be extended to all cases, including those in which the aggravatio......
- Howmar Materials, Inc. v. Peterson
-
Hiner v. CRAWFORD HEALTH & REHABILITATION
...was not applicable to claimant's claim. Relying on its order in Larry L. Ledin, 52 Van Natta 682 (2000), aff'd, SAIF v. Ledin, 174 Or.App. 61, 23 P.3d 411 (2001), the board held that the 1997 amendment applies to a new medical condition claim made before the amendments became effective only......