656.268 Claim
closure; termination of temporary total disability benefits; reconsideration of
closure; medical arbiter to make findings of impairment for reconsideration;
credit or offset for fraudulently obtained or overpaid benefits; rules. (1) One purpose of this chapter is
to restore the injured worker as soon as possible and as near as possible to a
condition of self support and maintenance as an able-bodied worker. The insurer
or self-insured employer shall close the worker’s claim, as prescribed by the
Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services, and determine the
extent of the worker’s permanent disability, provided the worker is not
enrolled and actively engaged in training according to rules adopted by the
director pursuant to ORS 656.340 and 656.726, when one of the following
conditions is met:
(a) The worker
has become medically stationary and there is sufficient information to
determine permanent disability. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
chapter, a physician or nurse practitioner may not retroactively determine a
worker to be medically stationary more than 60 days prior to the date of the
determination except in the case of claims that are subject to subsection (13)
of this section. An insurer or self-insured employer must mail or deliver
written notice to a worker and to the worker’s attorney, if the worker is
represented, within seven days following receipt of information that the worker
is medically stationary.
(b) The accepted
injury is no longer the major contributing cause of the worker’s combined or
consequential condition or conditions pursuant to ORS 656.005 (7). When the
claim is closed because the accepted injury is no longer the major contributing
cause of the worker’s combined or consequential condition or conditions, and
there is sufficient information to determine permanent disability, the likely
permanent disability that would have been due to the current accepted condition
shall be estimated.
(c) Without the
approval of the attending physician or nurse practitioner authorized to provide
compensable medical services under ORS 656.245, the worker fails to seek
medical treatment for a period of 30 days or the worker fails to attend a
closing examination, unless the worker affirmatively establishes that such
failure is attributable to reasons beyond the worker’s control.
(d) An insurer or
self-insured employer finds that a worker who has been receiving permanent
total disability benefits has materially improved and is capable of regularly
performing work at a gainful and suitable occupation.
(2) If the worker
is enrolled and actively engaged in training according to rules adopted
pursuant to ORS 656.340 and 656.726, the temporary disability compensation
shall be proportionately reduced by any sums earned during the training.
(3) A copy of all
medical reports and reports of vocational rehabilitation agencies or counselors
shall be furnished to the worker, if requested by the worker.
(4) Temporary
total disability benefits shall continue until whichever of the following
events first occurs:
(a) The worker
returns to regular or modified employment;
(b) The attending
physician or nurse practitioner who has authorized temporary disability
benefits for the worker under ORS 656.245 advises the worker and documents in
writing that the worker is released to return to regular employment;
(c) The attending
physician or nurse practitioner who has authorized temporary disability
benefits for the worker under ORS 656.245 advises the worker and documents in
writing that the worker is released to return to modified employment, such
employment is offered in writing to the worker and the worker fails to begin
such employment. However, an offer of modified employment may be refused by the
worker without the termination of temporary total disability benefits if the
offer:
(A) Requires a
commute that is beyond the physical capacity of the worker according to the
worker’s attending physician or the nurse practitioner who may authorize
temporary disability under ORS 656.245;
(B) Is at a work
site more than 50 miles one way from where the worker was injured unless the
site is less than 50 miles from the worker’s residence or the intent of the
parties at the time of hire or as established by the pattern of employment
prior to the injury was that the employer had multiple or mobile work sites and
the worker could be assigned to any such site;
(C) Is not with
the employer at injury;
(D) Is not at a
work site of the employer at injury;
(E) Is not
consistent with the existing written shift change policy or is not consistent
with common practice of the employer at injury or aggravation; or
(F) Is not
consistent with an existing shift change provision of an applicable collective
bargaining agreement;
(d) Any other
event that causes temporary disability benefits to be lawfully suspended,
withheld or terminated under ORS 656.262 (4) or other provisions of this
chapter; or
(e)
Notwithstanding paragraph (c)(C), (D), (E) and (F) of this subsection, the
attending physician or nurse practitioner who has authorized temporary
disability benefits under ORS 656.245 for a home care worker or a personal
support worker who has been made a subject worker pursuant to ORS 656.039
advises the home care worker or personal support worker and documents in
writing that the home care worker or personal support worker is released to
return to modified employment, appropriate modified employment is offered in
writing by the Home Care Commission or a designee of the commission to the home
care worker or personal support worker for any client of the Department of
Human Services who employs a home care worker or personal support worker and
the worker fails to begin the employment.
(5)(a) Findings
by the insurer or self-insured employer regarding the extent of the worker’s
disability in closure of the claim shall be pursuant to the standards
prescribed by the director.
(b) The insurer
or self-insured employer shall issue a notice of closure of the claim to the
worker and to the worker’s attorney if the worker is represented. The insurer
or self-insured employer shall notify the director of the closure in the manner
the director prescribes by rule. If the worker is deceased at the time the
notice of closure is issued, the insurer or self-insured employer shall mail
the worker’s copy of the notice of closure, addressed to the estate of the
worker, to the worker’s last known address and may mail copies of the notice of
closure to any known or potential beneficiaries to the estate of the deceased
worker.
(c) The notice of
closure must inform:
(A) The parties,
in boldfaced type, of the proper manner in which to proceed if they are
dissatisfied with the terms of the notice of closure;
(B) The worker
of:
(i) The amount of
any further compensation, including permanent disability compensation to be
awarded;
(ii) The duration
of temporary total or temporary partial disability compensation;
(iii) The right
of the worker or beneficiaries of the worker who were mailed a copy of the
notice of closure under paragraph (b) of this subsection to request
reconsideration by the director under this section within 60 days of the date
of the notice of closure;
(iv) The right of
beneficiaries who were not mailed a copy of the notice of closure under
paragraph (b) of this subsection to request reconsideration by the director
under this section within one year of the date the notice of closure was mailed
to the estate of the worker under paragraph (b) of this subsection;
(v) The right of
the insurer or self-insured employer to request reconsideration by the director
under this section within seven days of the date of the notice of closure;
(vi) The
aggravation rights; and
(vii) Any other
information as the director may require; and
(C) Any
beneficiaries of death benefits to which they may be entitled pursuant to ORS
656.204 and 656.208.
(d) If the
insurer or self-insured employer has not issued a notice of closure, the worker
may request closure. Within 10 days of receipt of a written request from the
worker, the insurer or self-insured employer shall issue a notice of closure if
the requirements of this section have been met or a notice of refusal to close
if the requirements of this section have not been met. A notice of refusal to
close shall advise the worker of:
(A) The decision
not to close;
(B) The right of
the worker to request a hearing pursuant to ORS 656.283 within 60 days of the
date of the notice of refusal to close;
(C) The right to
be represented by an attorney; and
(D) Any other
information as the director may require.
(e) If a worker,
a worker’s beneficiary, an insurer or a self-insured employer objects to the
notice of closure, the objecting party first must request reconsideration by
the director under this section. A worker’s request for reconsideration must be
made within 60 days of the date of the notice of closure. If the worker is
deceased at the time the notice of closure is issued, a request for
reconsideration by a beneficiary of the worker who was mailed a copy of the
notice of closure under paragraph (b) of this subsection must be made within 60
days of the date of the notice of closure. A request for reconsideration by a
beneficiary to the estate of a deceased worker who was not mailed a copy of the
notice of closure under paragraph (b) of this subsection must be made within
one year of the date the notice of closure was mailed to the estate of the
worker under paragraph (b) of this subsection. A request for reconsideration by
an insurer or self-insured employer may be based only on disagreement with the
findings used to rate impairment and must be made within seven days of the date
of the notice of closure.
(f) If an insurer
or self-insured employer has closed a claim or refused to close a claim
pursuant to this section, if the correctness of that notice of closure or
refusal to close is at issue in a hearing on the claim and if a finding is made
at the hearing that the notice of closure or refusal to close was not
reasonable, a penalty shall be assessed against the insurer or self-insured
employer and paid to the worker in an amount equal to 25 percent of all
compensation determined to be then due the claimant.
(g) If, upon
reconsideration of a claim closed by an insurer or self-insured employer, the
director orders an increase by 25 percent or more of the amount of compensation
to be paid to the worker for permanent disability and the worker is found upon
reconsideration to be at least 20 percent permanently disabled, a penalty shall
be assessed against the insurer or self-insured employer and paid to the worker
in an amount equal to 25 percent of all compensation determined to be then due
the claimant. If the increase in compensation results from information that the
insurer or self-insured employer demonstrates the insurer or self-insured
employer could not reasonably have known at the time of claim closure, from new
information obtained through a medical arbiter examination or from a
determination order issued by the director that addresses the extent of the
worker’s permanent disability that is not based on the standards adopted
pursuant to ORS 656.726 (4)(f), the penalty shall not be assessed.
(6)(a)
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, only one reconsideration proceeding
may be held on each notice of closure. At the reconsideration proceeding:
(A) A deposition
arranged by the worker, limited to the testimony and cross-examination of the
worker about the worker’s condition at the time of claim closure, shall become
part of the reconsideration record. The deposition must be conducted subject to
the opportunity for cross-examination by the insurer or self-insured employer
and in accordance with rules adopted by the director. The cost of the court
reporter, interpreter services, if necessary, and one original of the
transcript of the deposition for the Department of Consumer and Business
Services and one copy of the transcript of the deposition for each party shall be
paid by the insurer or self-insured employer. The reconsideration proceeding
may not be postponed to receive a deposition taken under this subparagraph. A
deposition taken in accordance with this subparagraph may be received as
evidence at a hearing even if the deposition is not prepared in time for use in
the reconsideration proceeding.
(B) Pursuant to
rules adopted by the director, the worker or the insurer or self-insured
employer may correct information in the record that is erroneous and may submit
any medical evidence that should have been but was not submitted by the
attending physician or nurse practitioner authorized to provide compensable
medical services under ORS 656.245 at the time of claim closure.
(C) If the
director determines that a claim was not closed in accordance with subsection
(1) of this section, the director may rescind the closure.
(b) If necessary,
the director may require additional medical or other information with respect
to the claims and may postpone the reconsideration for not more than 60
additional calendar days.
(c) In any
reconsideration proceeding under this section in which the worker was
represented by an attorney, the director shall order the insurer or
self-insured employer to pay to the attorney, out of the additional
compensation awarded, an amount equal to 10 percent of any additional
compensation awarded to the worker.
(d) Except as
provided in subsection (7) of this section, the reconsideration proceeding
shall be completed within 18 working days from the date the reconsideration
proceeding begins, and shall be performed by a special evaluation appellate
unit within the department. The deadline of 18 working days may be postponed by
an additional 60 calendar days if within the 18 working days the department
mails notice of review by a medical arbiter. If an order on reconsideration has
not been mailed on or before 18 working days from the date the reconsideration
proceeding begins, or within 18 working days plus the additional 60 calendar
days where a notice for medical arbiter review was timely mailed or the
director postponed the reconsideration pursuant to paragraph (b) of this
subsection, or within such additional time as provided in subsection (8) of
this section when reconsideration is postponed further because the worker has
failed to cooperate in the medical arbiter examination, reconsideration shall
be deemed denied and any further proceedings shall occur as though an order on
reconsideration affirming the notice of closure was mailed on the date the
order was due to issue.
(e) The period
for completing the reconsideration proceeding described in paragraph (d) of
this subsection begins upon receipt by the director of a worker’s or a
beneficiary’s request for reconsideration pursuant to subsection (5)(e) of this
section. If the insurer or self-insured employer requests reconsideration, the
period for reconsideration begins upon the earlier of the date of the request
for reconsideration by the worker or beneficiary, the date of receipt of a
waiver from the worker or beneficiary of the right to request reconsideration
or the date of expiration of the right of the worker or beneficiary to request
reconsideration. If a party elects not to file a separate request for
reconsideration, the party does not waive the right to fully participate in the
reconsideration proceeding, including the right to proceed with the
reconsideration if the initiating party withdraws the request for reconsideration.
(f) Any medical
arbiter report may be received as evidence at a hearing even if the report is
not prepared in time for use in the reconsideration proceeding.
(g) If any party
objects to the reconsideration order, the party may request a hearing under ORS
656.283 within 30 days from the date of the reconsideration order.
(7)(a) The
director may delay the reconsideration proceeding and toll the reconsideration
timeline established under subsection (6) of this section for up to 45 calendar
days if:
(A) A request for
reconsideration of a notice of closure has been made to the director within 60
days of the date of the notice of closure;
(B) The parties
are actively engaged in settlement negotiations that include issues in dispute
at reconsideration;
(C) The parties
agree to the delay; and
(D) Both parties
notify the director before the 18th working day after the reconsideration
proceeding has begun that they request a delay under this subsection.
(b) A delay of
the reconsideration proceeding granted by the director under this subsection
expires:
(A) If a party
requests the director to resume the reconsideration proceeding before the
expiration of the delay period;
(B) If the
parties reach a settlement and the director receives a copy of the approved
settlement documents before the expiration of the delay period; or
(C) On the next
calendar day following the expiration of the delay period authorized by the
director.
(c) Upon
expiration of a delay granted under this subsection, the timeline for the
completion of the reconsideration proceeding shall resume as if the delay had
never been granted.
(d) Compensation
due the worker shall continue to be paid during the period of delay authorized
under this subsection.
(e) The director
may authorize only one delay period for each reconsideration proceeding.
(8)(a) If the
basis for objection to a notice of closure issued under this section is
disagreement with the impairment used in rating of the worker’s disability, the
director shall refer the claim to a medical arbiter appointed by the director.
(b) If the
director determines that insufficient medical information is available to
determine disability, the director may appoint, and refer the claim to, a
medical arbiter.
(c) At the
request of either of the parties, the director shall appoint a panel of as many
as three medical arbiters in accordance with criteria that the director sets by
rule.
(d) The arbiter,
or panel of medical arbiters, must be chosen from among a list of physicians
qualified to be attending physicians referred to in ORS 656.005 (12)(b)(A) whom
the director selected in consultation with the Oregon Medical Board and the
committee referred to in ORS 656.790.
(e)(A) The
medical arbiter or panel of medical arbiters may examine the worker and perform
such tests as may be reasonable and necessary to establish the worker’s
impairment.
(B) If the
director determines that the worker failed to attend the examination without
good cause or failed to cooperate with the medical arbiter, or panel of medical
arbiters, the director shall postpone the reconsideration proceedings for up to
60 days from the date of the determination that the worker failed to attend or
cooperate, and shall suspend all disability benefits resulting from this or any
prior opening of the claim until such time as the worker attends and cooperates
with the examination or the request for reconsideration is withdrawn. Any
additional evidence regarding good cause must be submitted prior to the
conclusion of the 60-day postponement period.
(C) At the
conclusion of the 60-day postponement period, if the worker has not attended
and cooperated with a medical arbiter examination or established good cause,
the worker may not attend a medical arbiter examination for this claim closure.
The reconsideration record must be closed, and the director shall issue an
order on reconsideration based upon the existing record.
(D) All
disability benefits suspended under this subsection, including all disability
benefits awarded in the order on reconsideration, or by an Administrative Law
Judge, the Workers’ Compensation Board or upon court review, are not due and
payable to the worker.
(f) The insurer
or self-insured employer shall pay the costs of examination and review by the
medical arbiter or panel of medical arbiters.
(g) The findings
of the medical arbiter or panel of medical arbiters must be submitted to the
director for reconsideration of the notice of closure.
(h) After
reconsideration, no subsequent medical evidence of the worker’s impairment is
admissible before the director, the Workers’ Compensation Board or the courts
for purposes of making findings of impairment on the claim closure.
(i)(A) If the
basis for objection to a notice of closure issued under this section is a
disagreement with the impairment used in rating the worker’s disability, and
the director determines that the worker is not medically stationary at the time
of the reconsideration or that the closure was not made pursuant to this
section, the director is not required to appoint a medical arbiter before
completing the reconsideration proceeding.
(B) If the worker’s
condition has substantially changed since the notice of closure, upon the
consent of all the parties to the claim, the director shall postpone the
proceeding until the worker’s condition is appropriate for claim closure under
subsection (1) of this section.
(9) No hearing
shall be held on any issue that was not raised and preserved before the
director at reconsideration. However, issues arising out of the reconsideration
order may be addressed and resolved at hearing.
(10) If, after
the notice of closure issued pursuant to this section, the worker becomes
enrolled and actively engaged in training according to rules adopted pursuant
to ORS 656.340 and 656.726, any permanent disability payments due for work
disability under the closure shall be suspended, and the worker shall receive
temporary disability compensation and any permanent disability payments due for
impairment while the worker is enrolled and actively engaged in the training.
When the worker ceases to be enrolled and actively engaged in the training, the
insurer or self-insured employer shall again close the claim pursuant to this
section if the worker is medically stationary or if the worker’s accepted
injury is no longer the major contributing cause of the worker’s combined or
consequential condition or conditions pursuant to ORS 656.005 (7). The closure
shall include the duration of temporary total or temporary partial disability
compensation. Permanent disability compensation shall be redetermined for work disability
only. If the worker has returned to work or the worker’s attending physician
has released the worker to return to regular or modified employment, the
insurer or self-insured employer shall again close the claim. This notice of
closure may be appealed only in the same manner as are other notices of closure
under this section.
(11) If the
attending physician or nurse practitioner authorized to provide compensable
medical services under ORS 656.245 has approved the worker’s return to work and
there is a labor dispute in progress at the place of employment, the worker may
refuse to return to that employment without loss of reemployment rights or any
vocational assistance provided by this chapter.
(12) Any notice
of closure made under this section may include necessary adjustments in
compensation paid or payable prior to the notice of closure, including
disallowance of permanent disability payments prematurely made, crediting
temporary disability payments against current or future permanent or temporary
disability awards or payments and requiring the payment of temporary disability
payments which were payable but not paid.
(13) An insurer
or self-insured employer may take a credit or offset of previously paid workers’
compensation benefits or payments against any further workers’ compensation
benefits or payments due a worker from that insurer or self-insured employer
when the worker admits to having obtained the previously paid benefits or
payments through fraud, or a civil judgment or criminal conviction is entered
against the worker for having obtained the previously paid benefits through
fraud. Benefits or payments obtained through fraud by a worker may not be
included in any data used for ratemaking or individual employer rating or
dividend calculations by an insurer, a rating organization licensed pursuant to
ORS chapter 737, the State Accident Insurance Fund Corporation or the director.
(14)(a) An
insurer or self-insured employer may offset any compensation payable to the
worker to recover an overpayment from a claim with the same insurer or
self-insured employer. When overpayments are recovered from temporary
disability or permanent total disability benefits, the amount recovered from
each payment shall not exceed 25 percent of the payment, without prior
authorization from the worker.
(b) An insurer or
self-insured employer may suspend and offset any compensation payable to the
beneficiary of the worker, and recover an overpayment of permanent total
disability benefits caused by the failure of the worker’s beneficiaries to
notify the insurer or self-insured employer about the death of the worker.
(15) Conditions
that are direct medical sequelae to the original accepted condition shall be
included in rating permanent disability of the claim unless they have been
specifically denied.
(16)(a) Except as
provided under subsection (13) of this section, an insurer or self-insured
employer may not recover an overpayment from a worker’s permanent partial
disability compensation for overpayments, offsets or credits of wage loss in an
amount that exceeds 50 percent of the total compensation awarded to the worker.
(b) An insurer or
self-insured employer may not declare an overpayment of any compensation that
was paid more than two years prior to the date of the declaration. [1965 c.285 §31;
1973 c.620 §3; 1973 c.634 §2; 1977 c.804 §5; 1977 c.862 §1; 1979 c.839 §4; 1981
c.535 §7a; 1981 c.854 §19; 1981 c.874 §13; 1985 c.425 §1; 1985 c.600 §8; 1987
c.884 §10; 1990 c.2 §16; 1991 c.502 §1; 1995 c.332 §30; 1997 c.111 §1; 1997
c.382 §1; 1999 c.313 §1; 1999 c.1020 §3; 2001 c.349 §1; 2001 c.377 §63; 2001
c.865 §12; 2003 c.429 §1; 2003 c.657 §§7,8; 2003 c.811 §§11,12; 2005 c.221 §§1,2;
2005 c.461 §§3,4; 2005 c.569 §§1,2; 2007 c.241 §§11,12; 2007 c.270 §§4,5; 2007
c.274 §4; 2007 c.365 §6; 2007 c.835 §§2,3; 2011 c.99 §1; 2015 c.144 §1; 2017
c.68 §1; 2018 c.75 §29; 2021 c.47 §2; 2022 c.73 §§4,5]
Note: Section 6, chapter 73, Oregon Laws
2022, provides:
Sec. 6. (1) The amendments to ORS 656.268
by sections 4 and 5 of this 2022 Act apply to all claims that exist on, or
arise on or after, January 1, 2024, regardless of the date of injury or the
date on which the claim is filed.
(2)
Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, the amendments to ORS 656.268
by sections 4 and 5 of this 2022 Act do not apply to disputes in which a final
determination is made prior to January 1, 2024. [2022 c.73 §6]
656.270 [1971 c.155 §2; 1977 c.804 §6;
1979 c.839 §5; 1990 c.2 §17; 1999 c.313 §6; repealed by 2009 c.36 §5]
656.271 [1965 c.285 §32; 1969 c.171 §1;
repealed by 1973 c.620 §4 (656.273 enacted in lieu of 656.271)]
656.272 [Repealed by 1965 c.285 §95]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
432
cases (
23 in the last 5 years), 1970–2026 · leading case:
Fred Meyer, Inc. v. Bundy, 978 P.2d 385 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
Fred Meyer, Inc. v. Bundy, 978 P.2d 385 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 79× “It provides: "Temporary disability compensation is not due and payable pursuant to ORS *387 656.268 after the worker's attending physician ceases to authorize temporary disability or for any period of time not authorized by the attending physician.”
Koskela v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 15 P.3d 548 (Or. 2000).
· cites it 39× “283(7) (1993) provided, in part: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent or limit the right of a worker, insurer or self-insured employer to present evidence at hearing and to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the standards * * * for evaluation of…”
Caren v. Providence Health Sys. Or. (In re Caren), 446 P.3d 67 (Or. 2019).
· cites it 26× “" ORS 656.268 (1)(b). The question we must resolve is whether the legislature intended that an employer would obtain the same limited liability when the employer has not followed the process that the legislature has created for estimating a reduced amount of permanent impairment…”
Brown v. SAIF Corp., 391 P.3d 773 (Or. 2017).
· cites it 11× “The initial problem with that argument is that, as we have just noted, statutes such as ORS 656.268 explicitly treat the two terms as synonymous.”
Boydston v. Liberty Nw. Ins. Corp., 999 P.2d 503 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 46× “See generally ORS 656.268. If the claimant or the insurer is dissatisfied with the determination order, it may request reconsideration by DCBS.”
Koskela v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 978 P.2d 1018 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 34× “As a general proposition, claim closure occurs when either the worker or the employer asserts that the worker's disabling condition has become medically stationary, ORS 656.268, unless the worker is actively engaged in a vocational training program.”
Trujillo v. Pac. Saf. Supply, 84 P.3d 119 (Or. 2004).
· cites it 24× “283(7), a claimant has no right to cross-examine witnesses at a hearing arising out of an order on reconsideration, and that the procedures for determining permanent partial disability awards set out in ORS 656.268 and ORS 656.283 satisfy due process.”
McDermott v. SAIF Corp., 398 P.3d 964 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 47× “Thus, claimant asserts that the portions of OAR 436-035-0007, OAR 436-035-0013(2), and OAR 436-035-0014, which require compensation for the impairment that results from *414 a combined condition only when the compensable condition remains the major contributing cause of the…”
Schleiss v. SAIF Corp., 317 P.3d 244 (Or. 2013).
· cites it 12× “214 to have a different meaning than in ORS 656.268. In both statutes, depending on the *655 circumstances, the phrase could require the apportionment of a worker’s impairment based on contributing causes that are unrelated to the compensable injury.”
Walker v. Providence Health Sys. Oregon, 298 P.3d 38 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 18× “Employer did not issue a notice of closure or notice of refusal to close the claim within 10 days of claimant’s request as required by ORS 656.268(5)(b), which provides: “If the insurer or self-insured employer has not issued a notice of closure, the worker may request closure.”
Providence Health Sys. v. Walker, 289 P.3d 256 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 15× “Any objection to the updated notice or appeal of denied conditions shall not *495 delay claim closure pursuant to ORS 656.268. If a condition is found compensable after claim closure, the insurer or self-insured employer shall reopen the claim for processing regarding that…”
Duffour v. Portland Cmty. Coll., 389 P.3d 1162 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 22× “That is, the ALJ denied the penalties and fees that claimant requested in his first hearing request: the ORS 656.268 (5)(d) penalty for the allegedly “unreasonable” notice of closure; the ORS 656.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(1) — 60 cases
Koskela v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 15 P.3d 548 (Or. 2000).
“283(7) (1993) provided, in part: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent or limit the right of a worker, insurer or self-insured employer to present evidence at hearing and to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the standards * * * for evaluation of…”
McDermott v. SAIF Corp., 398 P.3d 964 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“Thus, claimant asserts that the portions of OAR 436-035-0007, OAR 436-035-0013(2), and OAR 436-035-0014, which require compensation for the impairment that results from *414 a combined condition only when the compensable condition remains the major contributing cause of the…”
Caren v. Providence Health Sys. Or. (In re Caren), 446 P.3d 67 (Or. 2019).
“" ORS 656.268 (1)(b). The question we must resolve is whether the legislature intended that an employer would obtain the same limited liability when the employer has not followed the process that the legislature has created for estimating a reduced amount of permanent impairment…”
Schleiss v. SAIF Corp., 317 P.3d 244 (Or. 2013).
“214 to have a different meaning than in ORS 656.268. In both statutes, depending on the *655 circumstances, the phrase could require the apportionment of a worker’s impairment based on contributing causes that are unrelated to the compensable injury.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(1)(a) — 10 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(1)(b) — 17 cases
Caren v. Providence Health Sys. Or. (In re Caren), 446 P.3d 67 (Or. 2019).
“" ORS 656.268 (1)(b). The question we must resolve is whether the legislature intended that an employer would obtain the same limited liability when the employer has not followed the process that the legislature has created for estimating a reduced amount of permanent impairment…”
Brown v. SAIF Corp., 391 P.3d 773 (Or. 2017).
“The initial problem with that argument is that, as we have just noted, statutes such as ORS 656.268 explicitly treat the two terms as synonymous.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(1)(c) — 1 case
Koskela v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 978 P.2d 1018 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
“As a general proposition, claim closure occurs when either the worker or the employer asserts that the worker's disabling condition has become medically stationary, ORS 656.268, unless the worker is actively engaged in a vocational training program.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(1)(d) — 1 case
Providence Health Sys. v. Walker, 289 P.3d 256 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
“Any objection to the updated notice or appeal of denied conditions shall not *495 delay claim closure pursuant to ORS 656.268. If a condition is found compensable after claim closure, the insurer or self-insured employer shall reopen the claim for processing regarding that…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(10) — 12 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(11) — 3 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(12) — 3 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(13) — 4 cases
Fred Meyer, Inc. v. Bundy, 978 P.2d 385 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
“It provides: "Temporary disability compensation is not due and payable pursuant to ORS *387 656.268 after the worker's attending physician ceases to authorize temporary disability or for any period of time not authorized by the attending physician.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(13)(a) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(14) — 3 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(14)(a) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(15) — 9 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(15)(a) — 2 cases
Fred Meyer, Inc. v. Bundy, 978 P.2d 385 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
“It provides: "Temporary disability compensation is not due and payable pursuant to ORS *387 656.268 after the worker's attending physician ceases to authorize temporary disability or for any period of time not authorized by the attending physician.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(16) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(2) — 20 cases
Koskela v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 15 P.3d 548 (Or. 2000).
“283(7) (1993) provided, in part: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent or limit the right of a worker, insurer or self-insured employer to present evidence at hearing and to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the standards * * * for evaluation of…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(2)(a) — 5 cases
Koskela v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 978 P.2d 1018 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
“As a general proposition, claim closure occurs when either the worker or the employer asserts that the worker's disabling condition has become medically stationary, ORS 656.268, unless the worker is actively engaged in a vocational training program.”
Koskela v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 15 P.3d 548 (Or. 2000).
“283(7) (1993) provided, in part: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent or limit the right of a worker, insurer or self-insured employer to present evidence at hearing and to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the standards * * * for evaluation of…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(2)(b) — 1 case
Koskela v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 978 P.2d 1018 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
“As a general proposition, claim closure occurs when either the worker or the employer asserts that the worker's disabling condition has become medically stationary, ORS 656.268, unless the worker is actively engaged in a vocational training program.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(2)(c) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(3) — 35 cases
Fred Meyer, Inc. v. Bundy, 978 P.2d 385 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
“It provides: "Temporary disability compensation is not due and payable pursuant to ORS *387 656.268 after the worker's attending physician ceases to authorize temporary disability or for any period of time not authorized by the attending physician.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(3)(a) — 7 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(3)(b) — 3 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(3)(c) — 6 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(3)(d) — 2 cases
Fred Meyer, Inc. v. Bundy, 978 P.2d 385 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
“It provides: "Temporary disability compensation is not due and payable pursuant to ORS *387 656.268 after the worker's attending physician ceases to authorize temporary disability or for any period of time not authorized by the attending physician.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(4) — 42 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(4)(a) — 6 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(4)(b) — 6 cases
Koskela v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 15 P.3d 548 (Or. 2000).
“283(7) (1993) provided, in part: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent or limit the right of a worker, insurer or self-insured employer to present evidence at hearing and to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the standards * * * for evaluation of…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(4)(c) — 3 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(4)(c)(A) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(4)(c)(C) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(4)(c)(D) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(4)(d) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(4)(e) — 11 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(4)(e)(A) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(4)(g) — 11 cases
Fred Meyer, Inc. v. Bundy, 978 P.2d 385 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
“It provides: "Temporary disability compensation is not due and payable pursuant to ORS *387 656.268 after the worker's attending physician ceases to authorize temporary disability or for any period of time not authorized by the attending physician.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(5) — 32 cases
Koskela v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 15 P.3d 548 (Or. 2000).
“283(7) (1993) provided, in part: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent or limit the right of a worker, insurer or self-insured employer to present evidence at hearing and to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the standards * * * for evaluation of…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(5)(a) — 8 cases
Koskela v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 15 P.3d 548 (Or. 2000).
“283(7) (1993) provided, in part: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent or limit the right of a worker, insurer or self-insured employer to present evidence at hearing and to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the standards * * * for evaluation of…”
Koskela v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 978 P.2d 1018 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
“As a general proposition, claim closure occurs when either the worker or the employer asserts that the worker's disabling condition has become medically stationary, ORS 656.268, unless the worker is actively engaged in a vocational training program.”
Fred Meyer, Inc. v. Bundy, 978 P.2d 385 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
“It provides: "Temporary disability compensation is not due and payable pursuant to ORS *387 656.268 after the worker's attending physician ceases to authorize temporary disability or for any period of time not authorized by the attending physician.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(5)(a)(B) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(5)(a)(C) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(5)(b) — 14 cases
Walker v. Providence Health Sys. Oregon, 298 P.3d 38 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
“Employer did not issue a notice of closure or notice of refusal to close the claim within 10 days of claimant’s request as required by ORS 656.268(5)(b), which provides: “If the insurer or self-insured employer has not issued a notice of closure, the worker may request closure.”
Koskela v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 978 P.2d 1018 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
“As a general proposition, claim closure occurs when either the worker or the employer asserts that the worker's disabling condition has become medically stationary, ORS 656.268, unless the worker is actively engaged in a vocational training program.”
Koskela v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 15 P.3d 548 (Or. 2000).
“283(7) (1993) provided, in part: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent or limit the right of a worker, insurer or self-insured employer to present evidence at hearing and to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the standards * * * for evaluation of…”
Trujillo v. Pac. Saf. Supply, 84 P.3d 119 (Or. 2004).
“283(7), a claimant has no right to cross-examine witnesses at a hearing arising out of an order on reconsideration, and that the procedures for determining permanent partial disability awards set out in ORS 656.268 and ORS 656.283 satisfy due process.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(5)(c) — 16 cases
Caren v. Providence Health Sys. Or. (In re Caren), 446 P.3d 67 (Or. 2019).
“" ORS 656.268 (1)(b). The question we must resolve is whether the legislature intended that an employer would obtain the same limited liability when the employer has not followed the process that the legislature has created for estimating a reduced amount of permanent impairment…”
Schleiss v. SAIF Corp., 317 P.3d 244 (Or. 2013).
“214 to have a different meaning than in ORS 656.268. In both statutes, depending on the *655 circumstances, the phrase could require the apportionment of a worker’s impairment based on contributing causes that are unrelated to the compensable injury.”
Duffour v. Portland Cmty. Coll., 389 P.3d 1162 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“That is, the ALJ denied the penalties and fees that claimant requested in his first hearing request: the ORS 656.268 (5)(d) penalty for the allegedly “unreasonable” notice of closure; the ORS 656.”
Koskela v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 15 P.3d 548 (Or. 2000).
“283(7) (1993) provided, in part: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent or limit the right of a worker, insurer or self-insured employer to present evidence at hearing and to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the standards * * * for evaluation of…”
Trujillo v. Pac. Saf. Supply, 84 P.3d 119 (Or. 2004).
“283(7), a claimant has no right to cross-examine witnesses at a hearing arising out of an order on reconsideration, and that the procedures for determining permanent partial disability awards set out in ORS 656.268 and ORS 656.283 satisfy due process.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(5)(c)(B) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(5)(d) — 15 cases
Walker v. Providence Health Sys. Oregon, 298 P.3d 38 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
“Employer did not issue a notice of closure or notice of refusal to close the claim within 10 days of claimant’s request as required by ORS 656.268(5)(b), which provides: “If the insurer or self-insured employer has not issued a notice of closure, the worker may request closure.”
Duffour v. Portland Cmty. Coll., 389 P.3d 1162 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“That is, the ALJ denied the penalties and fees that claimant requested in his first hearing request: the ORS 656.268 (5)(d) penalty for the allegedly “unreasonable” notice of closure; the ORS 656.”
Providence Health Sys. v. Walker, 289 P.3d 256 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
“Any objection to the updated notice or appeal of denied conditions shall not *495 delay claim closure pursuant to ORS 656.268. If a condition is found compensable after claim closure, the insurer or self-insured employer shall reopen the claim for processing regarding that…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(5)(e) — 9 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(5)(f) — 8 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(5)(g) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(6) — 19 cases
Trujillo v. Pac. Saf. Supply, 84 P.3d 119 (Or. 2004).
“283(7), a claimant has no right to cross-examine witnesses at a hearing arising out of an order on reconsideration, and that the procedures for determining permanent partial disability awards set out in ORS 656.268 and ORS 656.283 satisfy due process.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(6)(a) — 17 cases
Koskela v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 15 P.3d 548 (Or. 2000).
“283(7) (1993) provided, in part: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent or limit the right of a worker, insurer or self-insured employer to present evidence at hearing and to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the standards * * * for evaluation of…”
Trujillo v. Pac. Saf. Supply, 84 P.3d 119 (Or. 2004).
“283(7), a claimant has no right to cross-examine witnesses at a hearing arising out of an order on reconsideration, and that the procedures for determining permanent partial disability awards set out in ORS 656.268 and ORS 656.283 satisfy due process.”
Koskela v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 978 P.2d 1018 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
“As a general proposition, claim closure occurs when either the worker or the employer asserts that the worker's disabling condition has become medically stationary, ORS 656.268, unless the worker is actively engaged in a vocational training program.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(6)(a)(A) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(6)(a)(B) — 3 cases
Trujillo v. Pac. Saf. Supply, 84 P.3d 119 (Or. 2004).
“283(7), a claimant has no right to cross-examine witnesses at a hearing arising out of an order on reconsideration, and that the procedures for determining permanent partial disability awards set out in ORS 656.268 and ORS 656.283 satisfy due process.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(6)(a)(C) — 3 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(6)(b) — 14 cases
Boydston v. Liberty Nw. Ins. Corp., 999 P.2d 503 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“See generally ORS 656.268. If the claimant or the insurer is dissatisfied with the determination order, it may request reconsideration by DCBS.”
Koskela v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 15 P.3d 548 (Or. 2000).
“283(7) (1993) provided, in part: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent or limit the right of a worker, insurer or self-insured employer to present evidence at hearing and to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the standards * * * for evaluation of…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(6)(c) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(6)(d) — 5 cases
Boydston v. Liberty Nw. Ins. Corp., 999 P.2d 503 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“See generally ORS 656.268. If the claimant or the insurer is dissatisfied with the determination order, it may request reconsideration by DCBS.”
Trujillo v. Pac. Saf. Supply, 84 P.3d 119 (Or. 2004).
“283(7), a claimant has no right to cross-examine witnesses at a hearing arising out of an order on reconsideration, and that the procedures for determining permanent partial disability awards set out in ORS 656.268 and ORS 656.283 satisfy due process.”
Koskela v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 978 P.2d 1018 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
“As a general proposition, claim closure occurs when either the worker or the employer asserts that the worker's disabling condition has become medically stationary, ORS 656.268, unless the worker is actively engaged in a vocational training program.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(6)(e) — 3 cases
Trujillo v. Pac. Saf. Supply, 84 P.3d 119 (Or. 2004).
“283(7), a claimant has no right to cross-examine witnesses at a hearing arising out of an order on reconsideration, and that the procedures for determining permanent partial disability awards set out in ORS 656.268 and ORS 656.283 satisfy due process.”
Koskela v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 15 P.3d 548 (Or. 2000).
“283(7) (1993) provided, in part: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent or limit the right of a worker, insurer or self-insured employer to present evidence at hearing and to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the standards * * * for evaluation of…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(6)(f) — 9 cases
Koskela v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 15 P.3d 548 (Or. 2000).
“283(7) (1993) provided, in part: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent or limit the right of a worker, insurer or self-insured employer to present evidence at hearing and to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the standards * * * for evaluation of…”
Boydston v. Liberty Nw. Ins. Corp., 999 P.2d 503 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“See generally ORS 656.268. If the claimant or the insurer is dissatisfied with the determination order, it may request reconsideration by DCBS.”
Trujillo v. Pac. Saf. Supply, 84 P.3d 119 (Or. 2004).
“283(7), a claimant has no right to cross-examine witnesses at a hearing arising out of an order on reconsideration, and that the procedures for determining permanent partial disability awards set out in ORS 656.268 and ORS 656.283 satisfy due process.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(6)(g) — 11 cases
Koskela v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 15 P.3d 548 (Or. 2000).
“283(7) (1993) provided, in part: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent or limit the right of a worker, insurer or self-insured employer to present evidence at hearing and to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the standards * * * for evaluation of…”
Koskela v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 978 P.2d 1018 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
“As a general proposition, claim closure occurs when either the worker or the employer asserts that the worker's disabling condition has become medically stationary, ORS 656.268, unless the worker is actively engaged in a vocational training program.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(6Xd) — 1 case
Boydston v. Liberty Nw. Ins. Corp., 999 P.2d 503 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“See generally ORS 656.268. If the claimant or the insurer is dissatisfied with the determination order, it may request reconsideration by DCBS.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(7) — 27 cases
Boydston v. Liberty Nw. Ins. Corp., 999 P.2d 503 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“See generally ORS 656.268. If the claimant or the insurer is dissatisfied with the determination order, it may request reconsideration by DCBS.”
Trujillo v. Pac. Saf. Supply, 84 P.3d 119 (Or. 2004).
“283(7), a claimant has no right to cross-examine witnesses at a hearing arising out of an order on reconsideration, and that the procedures for determining permanent partial disability awards set out in ORS 656.268 and ORS 656.283 satisfy due process.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(7)(a) — 8 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(7)(b) — 4 cases
McDermott v. SAIF Corp., 398 P.3d 964 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“Thus, claimant asserts that the portions of OAR 436-035-0007, OAR 436-035-0013(2), and OAR 436-035-0014, which require compensation for the impairment that results from *414 a combined condition only when the compensable condition remains the major contributing cause of the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(7)(d) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(7)(e) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(7)(g) — 6 cases
Koskela v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 978 P.2d 1018 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
“As a general proposition, claim closure occurs when either the worker or the employer asserts that the worker's disabling condition has become medically stationary, ORS 656.268, unless the worker is actively engaged in a vocational training program.”
Koskela v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 15 P.3d 548 (Or. 2000).
“283(7) (1993) provided, in part: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent or limit the right of a worker, insurer or self-insured employer to present evidence at hearing and to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the standards * * * for evaluation of…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(7)(h) — 1 case
Koskela v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 15 P.3d 548 (Or. 2000).
“283(7) (1993) provided, in part: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent or limit the right of a worker, insurer or self-insured employer to present evidence at hearing and to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the standards * * * for evaluation of…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(7)(i)(B) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(8) — 15 cases
Koskela v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 978 P.2d 1018 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
“As a general proposition, claim closure occurs when either the worker or the employer asserts that the worker's disabling condition has become medically stationary, ORS 656.268, unless the worker is actively engaged in a vocational training program.”
Koskela v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 15 P.3d 548 (Or. 2000).
“283(7) (1993) provided, in part: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent or limit the right of a worker, insurer or self-insured employer to present evidence at hearing and to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the standards * * * for evaluation of…”
Schleiss v. SAIF Corp., 317 P.3d 244 (Or. 2013).
“214 to have a different meaning than in ORS 656.268. In both statutes, depending on the *655 circumstances, the phrase could require the apportionment of a worker’s impairment based on contributing causes that are unrelated to the compensable injury.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(8)(a) — 6 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(8)(c) — 3 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(8)(e)(A) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(8)(e)(B) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(8)(g) — 4 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(8)(i)(B) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(9) — 10 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(H) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(l) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(l)(a) — 12 cases
Schleiss v. SAIF Corp., 317 P.3d 244 (Or. 2013).
“214 to have a different meaning than in ORS 656.268. In both statutes, depending on the *655 circumstances, the phrase could require the apportionment of a worker’s impairment based on contributing causes that are unrelated to the compensable injury.”
Brown v. SAIF Corp., 391 P.3d 773 (Or. 2017).
“The initial problem with that argument is that, as we have just noted, statutes such as ORS 656.268 explicitly treat the two terms as synonymous.”
Koskela v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 15 P.3d 548 (Or. 2000).
“283(7) (1993) provided, in part: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent or limit the right of a worker, insurer or self-insured employer to present evidence at hearing and to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the standards * * * for evaluation of…”
Walker v. Providence Health Sys. Oregon, 298 P.3d 38 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
“Employer did not issue a notice of closure or notice of refusal to close the claim within 10 days of claimant’s request as required by ORS 656.268(5)(b), which provides: “If the insurer or self-insured employer has not issued a notice of closure, the worker may request closure.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(l)(b) — 8 cases
Brown v. SAIF Corp., 391 P.3d 773 (Or. 2017).
“The initial problem with that argument is that, as we have just noted, statutes such as ORS 656.268 explicitly treat the two terms as synonymous.”
McDermott v. SAIF Corp., 398 P.3d 964 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“Thus, claimant asserts that the portions of OAR 436-035-0007, OAR 436-035-0013(2), and OAR 436-035-0014, which require compensation for the impairment that results from *414 a combined condition only when the compensable condition remains the major contributing cause of the…”
Schleiss v. SAIF Corp., 317 P.3d 244 (Or. 2013).
“214 to have a different meaning than in ORS 656.268. In both statutes, depending on the *655 circumstances, the phrase could require the apportionment of a worker’s impairment based on contributing causes that are unrelated to the compensable injury.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.268(l)(c) — 1 case
Koskela v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 978 P.2d 1018 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
“As a general proposition, claim closure occurs when either the worker or the employer asserts that the worker's disabling condition has become medically stationary, ORS 656.268, unless the worker is actively engaged in a vocational training program.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.