omitted condition claim in Oregon

2020Accordingly, they say, Feigenbaum’s opinion alone cannot support an award for a new/omitted medical condition claim. “[W]hether a condition is encompassed within a new or omitted condition claim is * * * a question of fact that we review for substantial evidence.” Labor Ready v. Morgensen, 275 Or App 491, 497 , 365 P3d 623 (2015).

2020Accordingly, they say, Feigenbaum’s opinion alone cannot support an award for a new/omitted medical condition claim. “[W]hether a condition is encompassed within a new or omitted condition claim is * * * a question of fact that we review for substantial evidence.” Labor Ready v. Morgensen, 275 Or App 491, 497 , 365 P3d 623 (2015).

2026DeBoard v. Fred Meyer, 285 Or App 732, 737 , 397 P3d 97 , rev den, 361 Or 885 (2017).

2021The reasoning of the Court of Appeals also relies on an unsupportable premise—that if an allegedly new or omitted condition is “determined to have been encompassed in an original acceptance,” then the condition will have “already been correctly processed with the original claim.” Simi III, 301 Or App at 542 .

2020Accordingly, as a matter of law, the chart note did not sat- isfy the communication requirements of ORS 656.267(1), Cite as 304 Or App 122 (2020) 147 and, ultimately, the board did not err in concluding that it was insufficient for that purpose. 3.

2020“Substantial evi- dence supports a finding when the record, viewed as a whole, permits a reasonable person to make that finding.” Garcia v. Boise Cascade Corp., 309 Or 292, 294 , 787 P2d 884 (1990).

2020“Substantial evi- dence supports a finding when the record, viewed as a whole, permits a reasonable person to make that finding.” Garcia v. Boise Cascade Corp., 309 Or 292, 294 , 787 P2d 884 (1990).

2019Id.

2017In fact, if claimant were correct that an “otherwise compensable injury” refers not to an accepted condition but Cite as 361 Or 241 (2017) 281 more broadly to a “work accident” and “all the effects that flow from it,” the statute providing claimants the remedy of filing a new or omitted condition claim would serve no pur- pose at all.

2016Young v. Hermiston Good Samaritan, 223 Or App 99, 107 , 194 P3d 857 (2008).

2016Young v. Hermiston Good Samaritan, 223 Or App 99, 107 , 194 P3d 857 (2008).

2016As she did below, claimant argues that our decisions in Boeing Aircraft Co. and K-mart, together with our more recent decision in Horizon Air Industries, Inc. v. Davis-Warren, 266 Or App 388 , 337 P3d 959 (2014), require a different conclusion.

2016As she did below, claimant argues that our decisions in Boeing Aircraft Co. and K-mart, together with our more recent decision in Horizon Air Industries, Inc. v. Davis-Warren, 266 Or App 388 , 337 P3d 959 (2014), require a different conclusion.

2014Thus, this court held that employer was not subject to a penalty and attorney fees for its failure to process claimant’s omitted-condition claim pending the outcome of employer’s appeal of ALJ Mills’s order, and that the board erred in awarding a penalty and attorney fees based on the failure to process the omitted-condition claim pending appeal of ALJ Mills’s order. 252 Or App at 507 .

2014Thus, this court held that employer was not subject to a penalty and attorney fees for its failure to process claimant’s omitted-condition claim pending the outcome of employer’s appeal of ALJ Mills’s order, and that the board erred in awarding a penalty and attorney fees based on the failure to process the omitted-condition claim pending appeal of ALJ Mills’s order. 252 Or App at 507 .

2012Claimant responds that such a reading is inconsistent with the express text of the statute and would require us to insert words like the following italicized phrase into the statute: “If a condition is found compensable after claim closure and that finding has become final, the insurer or self-insured employer shall reopen the claim for processing regarding that condition.” The parties also assert that SAIF v. Maddox, 295 Or 448 , 667 P3d 529 (1983), in which the Supreme Court construed a previous version of ORS 656.313, sheds light on the meaning of ORS 656.262(7)(c).

2012This is a question of statutory construction that we review for legal error using the principles set out in PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 610-12 , 859 P2d 1143 (1993), and State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 171-72 , 206 P3d 1042 (2009).

2012This is a question of statutory construction that we review for legal error using the principles set out in PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 610-12 , 859 P2d 1143 (1993), and State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 171-72 , 206 P3d 1042 (2009).

2012This is a question of statutory construction that we review for legal error using the principles set out in PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 610-12 , 859 P2d 1143 (1993), and State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 171-72 , 206 P3d 1042 (2009).

2012This is a question of statutory construction that we review for legal error using the principles set out in PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 610-12 , 859 P2d 1143 (1993), and State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 171-72 , 206 P3d 1042 (2009).

2012Id. at 286 .

2006Id.