From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Saif Corporation v. Ledin

Oregon Court of Appeals
May 2, 2001
23 P.3d 411 (Or. Ct. App. 2001)

Summary

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 aggravation period had expired.

Summary of this case from In the Matter of the Compensation of Azorr

Opinion

99-03403; CA A110298

Argued and submitted April 6, 2001.

Filed: May 2, 2001

Judicial review from Workers' Compensation Board.

Julene Marian Quinn argued the cause and filed the brief for petitioners.

Gordon Gannicott argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Hollander, Lebenbaum Gannicott.

Before EDMONDS, Presiding Judge, and KISTLER and SCHUMAN, Judges.


PER CURIAM

Affirmed.


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. 528 (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.


Summaries of

Saif Corporation v. Ledin

Oregon Court of Appeals
May 2, 2001
23 P.3d 411 (Or. Ct. App. 2001)

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 aggravation period had expired.

Summary of this case from In the Matter of the Compensation of Azorr
Case details for

Saif Corporation v. Ledin

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Compensation of Larry L. Ledin, Claimant. SAIF…

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: May 2, 2001

Citations

23 P.3d 411 (Or. Ct. App. 2001)
23 P.3d 411

Citing Cases

In the Matter of the Compensation of Hiner

The board did not reach the merits of claimant's contention that her original claim should be reopened for…

In the Matter of the Compensation of Azorr

This court has since held that an employer is required to reopen an original claim under circumstances such…