previously accepted claim in Oregon

2001The Supreme Court held the employer to its original acceptance: *645 “[The] employer is not at liberty to accept a claim, make payments over an extended period of time, place the com-pensability in a holding pattern and then, as an afterthought, decide to litigate the issue of compensability. * * * “Accordingly, we agree with the Court of Appeals that it was not permissible for [the employer] to reconsider and deny the previously accepted claim and that the Board erred in allowing this belated denial.” 295 Or at 794 .

1991SAIF contends that this case is like D Maintenance Company v. Mischke, 84 Or App 218 , 733 P2d 903 , rev den 303 Or 483 (1987) and Oak Crest Care Center v. Bond, 101 Or App 15 , 789 P2d 6 , rev den 310 Or 121 (1990), where we said that the rule in Bauman v. SAIF, 295 Or 788 , 670 P2d 1027 (1983), prohibiting back-up denials, was not intended to prevent a denial of a previously accepted claim when the insurer discovers that it did not provide coverage to the employer on the date of the injury.

1991SAIF contends that this case is like D Maintenance Company v. Mischke, 84 Or App 218 , 733 P2d 903 , rev den 303 Or 483 (1987) and Oak Crest Care Center v. Bond, 101 Or App 15 , 789 P2d 6 , rev den 310 Or 121 (1990), where we said that the rule in Bauman v. SAIF, 295 Or 788 , 670 P2d 1027 (1983), prohibiting back-up denials, was not intended to prevent a denial of a previously accepted claim when the insurer discovers that it did not provide coverage to the employer on the date of the injury.

1991SAIF contends that this case is like D Maintenance Company v. Mischke, 84 Or App 218 , 733 P2d 903 , rev den 303 Or 483 (1987) and Oak Crest Care Center v. Bond, 101 Or App 15 , 789 P2d 6 , rev den 310 Or 121 (1990), where we said that the rule in Bauman v. SAIF, 295 Or 788 , 670 P2d 1027 (1983), prohibiting back-up denials, was not intended to prevent a denial of a previously accepted claim when the insurer discovers that it did not provide coverage to the employer on the date of the injury.

1996The court reasoned that allowing the employer to deny a previously accepted claim “would encourage degrees of instability in the workers’ compensation system that we do not believe the statute contemplates.” Id. at 793 .

1996Further, the potential for delayed litigation would frustrate the statutory scheme’s provision for a “speedy resolution of workers’ compensation claims.” Id. at 794 .

2020Furthermore, as SAIF emphasizes, para- graph (2)(a) provides only for the processing of new medical conditions “related to an initially accepted claim.”12 12 In support of an argument that the phrase “related to an initially accepted claim” in ORS 656.267(2)(a) applies only to omitted medical conditions and not new medical conditions, and therefore does not condition new medical condition claims on there being a previously accepted claim, claimant implicitly invokes the “doctrine of the last antecedent.” See Price v. Lotlikar, 285 Or App 692, 702 , 397 P3d 54 (2017) (“Under the doctrine of the

2020Furthermore, as SAIF emphasizes, para- graph (2)(a) provides only for the processing of new medical conditions “related to an initially accepted claim.”12 12 In support of an argument that the phrase “related to an initially accepted claim” in ORS 656.267(2)(a) applies only to omitted medical conditions and not new medical conditions, and therefore does not condition new medical condition claims on there being a previously accepted claim, claimant implicitly invokes the “doctrine of the last antecedent.” See Price v. Lotlikar, 285 Or App 692, 702 , 397 P3d 54 (2017) (“Under the doctrine of the

2014We concluded that the worker’s misrepresentations “were not sufficiently material to justify SAIF’s backup denial,” because the worker’s supervisor “knew what [the worker’s] status at the mill was and that he had filed the claims,” and “[t]hat knowledge was attributable to [the employer] as well as to its insurer, SAIF.” Abbott, 103 Or App at 53 (citing Colvin v. Industrial Indemnity, 301 Or 743 , 725 P2d 356 (1986); Nix, 80 Or App at 660 ).

2014We concluded that the worker’s misrepresentations “were not sufficiently material to justify SAIF’s backup denial,” because the worker’s supervisor “knew what [the worker’s] status at the mill was and that he had filed the claims,” and “[t]hat knowledge was attributable to [the employer] as well as to its insurer, SAIF.” Abbott, 103 Or App at 53 (citing Colvin v. Industrial Indemnity, 301 Or 743 , 725 P2d 356 (1986); Nix, 80 Or App at 660 ).

2014We concluded that the worker’s misrepresentations “were not sufficiently material to justify SAIF’s backup denial,” because the worker’s supervisor “knew what [the worker’s] status at the mill was and that he had filed the claims,” and “[t]hat knowledge was attributable to [the employer] as well as to its insurer, SAIF.” Abbott, 103 Or App at 53 (citing Colvin v. Industrial Indemnity, 301 Or 743 , 725 P2d 356 (1986); Nix, 80 Or App at 660 ).

2014We concluded that the worker’s misrepresentations “were not sufficiently material to justify SAIF’s backup denial,” because the worker’s supervisor “knew what [the worker’s] status at the mill was and that he had filed the claims,” and “[t]hat knowledge was attributable to [the employer] as well as to its insurer, SAIF.” Abbott, 103 Or App at 53 (citing Colvin v. Industrial Indemnity, 301 Or 743 , 725 P2d 356 (1986); Nix, 80 Or App at 660 ).

1994In holding that the statute applied in the context of an initial claim, we referred to the legislative history, which we concluded showed that the objective of the legislature "was to adopt the major contributing cause standard of proof with respect to any claim for benefits or disability related to a preexisting, noncompensable condition." 120 Or.App. at 590 , 853 P.2d 315 .

1994In holding that the statute applied in the context of an initial claim, we referred to the legislative history, which we concluded showed that the objective of the legislature "was to adopt the major contributing cause standard of proof with respect to any claim for benefits or disability related to a preexisting, noncompensable condition." 120 Or.App. at 590 , 853 P.2d 315 .

1991SAIF contends that this case is like D Maintenance Company v. Mischke, 84 Or App 218 , 733 P2d 903 , rev den 303 Or 483 (1987) and Oak Crest Care Center v. Bond, 101 Or App 15 , 789 P2d 6 , rev den 310 Or 121 (1990), where we said that the rule in Bauman v. SAIF, 295 Or 788 , 670 P2d 1027 (1983), prohibiting back-up denials, was not intended to prevent a denial of a previously accepted claim when the insurer discovers that it did not provide coverage to the employer on the date of the injury.

1991SAIF contends that this case is like D Maintenance Company v. Mischke, 84 Or App 218 , 733 P2d 903 , rev den 303 Or 483 (1987) and Oak Crest Care Center v. Bond, 101 Or App 15 , 789 P2d 6 , rev den 310 Or 121 (1990), where we said that the rule in Bauman v. SAIF, 295 Or 788 , 670 P2d 1027 (1983), prohibiting back-up denials, was not intended to prevent a denial of a previously accepted claim when the insurer discovers that it did not provide coverage to the employer on the date of the injury.

1991(Emphasis in original.) In holding the denial invalid, we said: “An employer has authority to deny a current claimed need for medical services, or specific claims as the claimant presents them, if the medical services are not reasonable and necessary and attributable to the compensable injury. * * * However, an employer may not deny its future responsibility for payment of benefits relating to a previously accepted claim, unless it follows the statutory procedure for claim closure.” (Emphasis supplied.) 99 Or App at 356 .

1989Webb v. SAIF, 83 Or App 386 , 731 P2d 1054 (1987); Roller v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 67 Or App 583 , 679 P2d 341 , on reconsideration 68 Or App 743 , 683 P2d 554 , rev den 297 Or 601 (1984). 2 Employer here tried to deny the claim prospectively, because it denied future medical benefits, not just a separate, noncompensable condition.

1989Webb v. SAIF, 83 Or App 386 , 731 P2d 1054 (1987); Roller v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 67 Or App 583 , 679 P2d 341 , on reconsideration 68 Or App 743 , 683 P2d 554 , rev den 297 Or 601 (1984). 2 Employer here tried to deny the claim prospectively, because it denied future medical benefits, not just a separate, noncompensable condition.

1989ORS 656.245(1); Bowser v. Evans Product Company, 270 Or 841 , 530 P2d 44 (1974); Wait v. Montgomery Ward, Inc., 10 Or App 333, 338 , 499 P2d 1340 , rev den (1972).

1989ORS 656.245(1); Bowser v. Evans Product Company, 270 Or 841 , 530 P2d 44 (1974); Wait v. Montgomery Ward, Inc., 10 Or App 333, 338 , 499 P2d 1340 , rev den (1972).

1989ORS 656.245(1); Bowser v. Evans Product Company, 270 Or 841 , 530 P2d 44 (1974); Wait v. Montgomery Ward, Inc., 10 Or App 333, 338 , 499 P2d 1340 , rev den (1972).

1989ORS 656.245(1); Bowser v. Evans Product Company, 270 Or 841 , 530 P2d 44 (1974); Wait v. Montgomery Ward, Inc., 10 Or App 333, 338 , 499 P2d 1340 , rev den (1972).

1989Webb v. SAIF, 83 Or App 386 , 731 P2d 1054 (1987); Roller v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 67 Or App 583 , 679 P2d 341 , on reconsideration 68 Or App 743 , 683 P2d 554 , rev den 297 Or 601 (1984). 2 Employer here tried to deny the claim prospectively, because it denied future medical benefits, not just a separate, noncompensable condition.

1989Webb v. SAIF, 83 Or App 386 , 731 P2d 1054 (1987); Roller v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 67 Or App 583 , 679 P2d 341 , on reconsideration 68 Or App 743 , 683 P2d 554 , rev den 297 Or 601 (1984). 2 Employer here tried to deny the claim prospectively, because it denied future medical benefits, not just a separate, noncompensable condition.

1989Webb v. SAIF, 83 Or App 386 , 731 P2d 1054 (1987); Roller v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 67 Or App 583 , 679 P2d 341 , on reconsideration 68 Or App 743 , 683 P2d 554 , rev den 297 Or 601 (1984). 2 Employer here tried to deny the claim prospectively, because it denied future medical benefits, not just a separate, noncompensable condition.

1989Webb v. SAIF, 83 Or App 386 , 731 P2d 1054 (1987); Roller v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 67 Or App 583 , 679 P2d 341 , on reconsideration 68 Or App 743 , 683 P2d 554 , rev den 297 Or 601 (1984). 2 Employer here tried to deny the claim prospectively, because it denied future medical benefits, not just a separate, noncompensable condition.

1983“The reason for the denial, is among other things SAIF’s, and your employer’s opinion, that on October 10, 1977 and thereafter while working at Omark Industries, Inc. you incurred no more than a symptom of a pre-existing and personal degenerative disease condition in your shoulder and that your work at Omark Industries, Inc. neither caused nor materially contributed to the normal progression of the disease process and/or your need for medical care and treatment on and following October 10, 1977.” The Board relied on Frasure v. Agripac, 290 Or 99 , 619 P2d 274 (1980), and Saxton v. Lamb-Weston,

1983“The reason for the denial, is among other things SAIF’s, and your employer’s opinion, that on October 10, 1977 and thereafter while working at Omark Industries, Inc. you incurred no more than a symptom of a pre-existing and personal degenerative disease condition in your shoulder and that your work at Omark Industries, Inc. neither caused nor materially contributed to the normal progression of the disease process and/or your need for medical care and treatment on and following October 10, 1977.” The Board relied on Frasure v. Agripac, 290 Or 99 , 619 P2d 274 (1980), and Saxton v. Lamb-Weston,

1983“The reason for the denial, is among other things SAIF’s, and your employer’s opinion, that on October 10, 1977 and thereafter while working at Omark Industries, Inc. you incurred no more than a symptom of a pre-existing and personal degenerative disease condition in your shoulder and that your work at Omark Industries, Inc. neither caused nor materially contributed to the normal progression of the disease process and/or your need for medical care and treatment on and following October 10, 1977.” The Board relied on Frasure v. Agripac, 290 Or 99 , 619 P2d 274 (1980), and Saxton v. Lamb-Weston,

1983“The reason for the denial, is among other things SAIF’s, and your employer’s opinion, that on October 10, 1977 and thereafter while working at Omark Industries, Inc. you incurred no more than a symptom of a pre-existing and personal degenerative disease condition in your shoulder and that your work at Omark Industries, Inc. neither caused nor materially contributed to the normal progression of the disease process and/or your need for medical care and treatment on and following October 10, 1977.” The Board relied on Frasure v. Agripac, 290 Or 99 , 619 P2d 274 (1980), and Saxton v. Lamb-Weston,

1973Rather, it dealt with “* * * a claim * * * for aggravation of a previously accepted claim for disability because of occupational disease.” 9 Or App at 101 .