medical condition claim in Oregon

17 Oregon opinions name it 1 courts 1999–2022 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Oregon courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (4)

Case	Followed	Cited
Johansen v. SAIF Corp.green orctapp · 1999 · cited in 5 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 1999–2020 2 sentences 2020That is, because we defined a “new medical condition claim” in Johansen as a claim that, among Cite as 304 Or App 122 (2020) 139 other things, “arises after acceptance of an initial claim,” 158 Or App at 679 , claimant’s submission of the 827 form arguably was not a new medical condition claim within the meaning of ORS 656.267(1), despite the form’s language to that effect. 2020“Beyond that, the statute pro- vides that a new medical condition claim may be filed at any time[.]” Id. (emphasis added). b.	1	5
Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society v. Bonhamgreen orctapp · 2001 · cited in 4 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2002–2022 2 sentences 2022Claimant’s primary argu- ment is, in essence, that, because a new/omitted medical con- dition claim may be brought at any time, ORS 656.262(7)(a); Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Soc. v. Bonham, 176 Or App 490 , 32 P3d 899 (2001), rev den, 334 Or 75 (2002) (ORS 656.262(7)(a) bars application of the rules of claim preclusion to a new medical condition claim.) and therefore is not subject to claim preclusion, an occupational disease claim based on the same conditions previously litigated in a new/omitted medical condition claim can be litigated separately from the new/omitted medical conditi 2022Claimant’s primary argu- ment is, in essence, that, because a new/omitted medical con- dition claim may be brought at any time, ORS 656.262(7)(a); Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Soc. v. Bonham, 176 Or App 490 , 32 P3d 899 (2001), rev den, 334 Or 75 (2002) (ORS 656.262(7)(a) bars application of the rules of claim preclusion to a new medical condition claim.) and therefore is not subject to claim preclusion, an occupational disease claim based on the same conditions previously litigated in a new/omitted medical condition claim can be litigated separately from the new/omitted medical conditi	1	4
State v. Vasquez-Rubiogreen or · 1996 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 2 sentences 2005See State v. Vasquez-Rubio, 323 Or 275, 280 , 917 P2d 494 (1996) (noting that statutory exceptions are generally signaled by use of “words of limitation, such as ‘except,’ ‘however,’ or ‘provided that’ ”). 2005See State v. Vasquez-Rubio, 323 Or 275, 280 , 917 P2d 494 (1996) (noting that statutory exceptions are generally signaled by use of “words of limitation, such as ‘except,’ ‘however,’ or ‘provided that’ ”).	1	1
Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Piwowargreen or · 1988 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001 2 sentences 2001See Georgia-Pacific v. Piwowar, 305 Or 494, 501 , 753 P2d 948 (1988) (holding that by accepting the claimant’s claim for a symptom, the employer had accepted the claim for all of its underlying causes). 2001See Georgia-Pacific v. Piwowar, 305 Or 494, 501 , 753 P2d 948 (1988) (holding that by accepting the claimant’s claim for a symptom, the employer had accepted the claim for all of its underlying causes).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (12)

Case	Cited	Years
Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & Industries green or · 1993 2 sentences 2005Applying the methodology set forth in PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 610-12 , 859 P2d 1143 (1993), we conclude that it did. 2005Applying the methodology set forth in PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 610-12 , 859 P2d 1143 (1993), we conclude that it did.	2	2001–2005
Coleman v. SAIF green orctapp · 2020 2 sentences 2020That is, because we defined a “new medical condition claim” in Johansen as a claim that, among Cite as 304 Or App 122 (2020) 139 other things, “arises after acceptance of an initial claim,” 158 Or App at 679 , claimant’s submission of the 827 form arguably was not a new medical condition claim within the meaning of ORS 656.267(1), despite the form’s language to that effect. 2020As noted above, that version of ORS 656.262(7)(a), which remained in effect at the time we decided Johansen, pro- vided: “After claim acceptance, written notice of acceptance or denial of claims for aggravation or new medical condition shall be furnished to the claimant[.] * * * Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the worker may initiate a new medical condition claim at any time.” ORS 656.262(7)(a) Cite as 304 Or App 122 (2020) 141 (1999), amended by Or Laws 2001, ch 865, § 7 (emphases added).	1	2020–2020
Brown v. SAIF Corp. green orctapp · 2014 1 sentence 2018In view of the board's conclusion that the "claimed conditions" of disc protrusion were nonexistent, the board's discussion of causation and compensability in its first order can plausibly be understood to be limited to the "claimed conditions" of multiple-level disc "protrusions," and not to this current claim for "bulges." However, in analyzing the compensability of the claim, the board cited our opinion in Brown v. SAIF , 262 Or.	1	2018–2018
Basmaci v. Stanley Works neutral orctapp · 2003 2 sentences 2006The bottom half was completed by claimant’s doctor in March 2002, describing claimant’s symptoms and diagnosis, requesting preauthorization of an MRI, and checking a box for “temporary disability authorization.” The bottom of the form contained an instruction that it “must be mailed to the insurer within 72 hours after the worker’s first visit.” In Basmaci , we upheld the board’s conclusion that “Form 827 did not fulfill the requirements for a new medical condition claim [under ORS 656.262(7)(a) (1997)] and therefore did not trigger employer’s obligation to pay interim compensation.” 187 Or Ap 2006In particular, we relied on the fact that the provisions of ORS 656.262(7) (1997) pertaining to new or omitted condition claims specified that the “claim must ‘clearly request formal written acceptance’ of the condition.” Id. at 340 .	1	2006–2006
Rose v. Saif Corp. green orctapp · 2005 2 sentences 2005While this case was pending on appeal, this court decided Rose v. SAIF, 200 Or App 654 , 116 P3d 913 (2005), and held that an “encompassed condition letter” is not a sufficient response to a claimant’s new medical condition claim. 2005While this case was pending on appeal, this court decided Rose v. SAIF, 200 Or App 654 , 116 P3d 913 (2005), and held that an “encompassed condition letter” is not a sufficient response to a claimant’s new medical condition claim.	1	2005–2005
Basmaci v. the Stanley Works neutral orctapp · 2001 2 sentences 2003Claimant seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board on remand from our opinion in Basmaci v. The Stanley Works, 177 Or App 102 , 33 P3d 377 (2001), contending that the board erred in holding that he has not perfected a new medical condition claim. 2003Claimant seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board on remand from our opinion in Basmaci v. The Stanley Works, 177 Or App 102 , 33 P3d 377 (2001), contending that the board erred in holding that he has not perfected a new medical condition claim.	1	2003–2003
Volk v. America West Airlines green orctapp · 1995 2 sentences 2002Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the worker may initiate a new medical condition claim at any time.” In Volk v. America West Airlines, 135 Or App 565, 570 , 899 P2d 746 (1995), rev den, 322 Or 645 (1996), we quoted from the testimony of then-Representative Kevin Mannix, a sponsor of the 1995 legislation, as to the meaning of the retroactivity provision: “ ‘[TJhis law applies to everything no matter where it is unless you have already been to court, had it decided and there’s a decision been rendered and the decision is not subject to being appealed anymore.’ ” Tape Recordin 2002Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the worker may initiate a new medical condition claim at any time.” In Volk v. America West Airlines, 135 Or App 565, 570 , 899 P2d 746 (1995), rev den, 322 Or 645 (1996), we quoted from the testimony of then-Representative Kevin Mannix, a sponsor of the 1995 legislation, as to the meaning of the retroactivity provision: “ ‘[TJhis law applies to everything no matter where it is unless you have already been to court, had it decided and there’s a decision been rendered and the decision is not subject to being appealed anymore.’ ” Tape Recordin	1	2002–2002
Labor Ready, Inc. v. Mann green orctapp · 1999 1 sentence 2002On review, claimant contends that statutory provisions and our holding in Johansen v. SAIF, 158 Or App 672 , 976 P2d 84 , adhered to on recons, 160 Or App 579 , 987 P2d 524 , rev den, 329 Or 528 (1999), require the conclusion that a new medical condition claim gives rise to a new period of aggravation rights.	1	2002–2002
Johansen v. SAIF Corp. green orctapp · 1999 1 sentence 2002On review, claimant contends that statutory provisions and our holding in Johansen v. SAIF, 158 Or App 672 , 976 P2d 84 , adhered to on recons, 160 Or App 579 , 987 P2d 524 , rev den, 329 Or 528 (1999), require the conclusion that a new medical condition claim gives rise to a new period of aggravation rights.	1	2002–2002
SAIF Corp. v. Ledin neutral orctapp · 2001 1 sentence 2002Ledin, 52 Van Natta 682 (2000), affd, SAIF v. Ledin, 174 Or App 61 , 23 P2d 411 (2001), the board held that the 1997 amendment applies to a new medical condition claim made before the amendments became effective only if the claim was the subject of litigation and was not finally found to be compensable until after the amendment became effective.	1	2002–2002
Sound Elevator v. Zwingraf green orctapp · 2002 1 sentence 2002In light of our decision in Sound Elevator v. Zwingraf, 181 Or App 150 , 45 P3d *538 958 (2002) (claimant may contest denial of new or omitted condition even if no new or omitted condition claim was filed), employer has correctly abandoned that argument. 3 We note that, under ORS 656.262(7)(a) (1999), a claimant “may initiate a new medical condition claim at any time.” Claimant has done so in this case.	1	2002–2002
Jones v. Emanuel Hospital green or · 1977 2 sentences 1999As we held in Johansen , the duty to pay benefits for TTD on a new medical condition claim, although not expressly referred to in ORS 656.262(7), is encompassed within ORS 656.262(4)(a), which provides: “The first installment of temporary disability compensation shall be paid no later than the 14th day after the subject employer has notice or knowledge of the claim, if the attending physician authorizes the payment of temporary disability compensation.” When a claim has neither been accepted nor denied, the benefits for temporary disability that the employer must begin to 670 pay no later tha 1999As we held in Johansen , the duty to pay benefits for TTD on a new medical condition claim, although not expressly referred to in ORS 656.262(7), is encompassed within ORS 656.262(4)(a), which provides: “The first installment of temporary disability compensation shall be paid no later than the 14th day after the subject employer has notice or knowledge of the claim, if the attending physician authorizes the payment of temporary disability compensation.” When a claim has neither been accepted nor denied, the benefits for temporary disability that the employer must begin to 670 pay no later tha	1	1999–1999

Statutes the citing opinions construe

OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.262 (14) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.005 (8) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482 (6) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.267 (6) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.273 (5) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.386 (5) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268 (4) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.278 (4) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 174.010 (3) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.245 (3) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.298 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

OR 17 (1999–2022) IA 3 (2017–2017)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check