Summary
In Giusti Wine Co. v. Adams, 94 Or. App. 175, 764 P.2d 620 (1988), we remanded the case to the Board for a determination of whether claimant had "good cause" under ORS 656.319 (1)(b) for failure to file a request for a hearing within the statutory period.
Summary of this case from Giusti Wine Co. v. AdamsOpinion
86-08747, 85-15626, 86-01876, 86-08746; CA A46450
Argued and submitted September 9, 1988
Reversed and remanded November 23, 1988
Judicial Review from Workers' Compensation Board.
Patric J. Doherty, Portland, argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the brief were Karli L. Olson and Rankin, VavRosky, Doherty, MacColl Mersereau, Portland.
James L. Edmunson, Eugene, argued the cause for respondent James G. Adams. With him on the brief were A. Sue Guthrie and Malagon Moore, Eugene.
Otto R. Skopil, III, Portland, argued the cause for respondent United Pacific Insurance. With him on the brief were Bruce L. Byerly and Moscato Byerly, Portland.
Craig A. Staples, Portland, argued the cause for respondent Western Employers Insurance. With him on the brief was Roberts, Reinisch Klor, P.C., Portland.
Christopher P. Thomas, Portland, argued the cause for respondent Royal Insurance. On the brief was Daryll E. Klein, Portland.
Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Warren and Rossman, Judges.
PER CURIAM
Reversed and remanded.
In this workers' compensation case, EBI seeks review of a decision of the Board determining that claimant's request for hearing was not untimely.
On August 19, 1985, EBI issued a denial of responsibility for claimant's aggravation claim. It sent the letter by certified mail, return receipt requested, to claimant's correct address. Claimant did not claim the letter, despite notices left by the post office on August 21 and 27. On October 29, 1985, employer sent a copy of the notice of denial through the regular mail. Claimant received it on November 4, 1985. He filed a request for hearing on December 18, 1985.
The Board held that the request for hearing was not untimely, because the time for filing the request did not begin to run until claimant actually received notice of the denial. As we held in Cowart v. SAIF, 86 Or. App. 748, 740 P.2d 249 (1987), the date of mailing, not receipt, starts the running of the 60 days under ORS 656.319. Because the notice was mailed August 19, 1985, claimant's request for hearing was not timely, and we reverse and remand for a determination of whether claimant had good cause for filing a late request for hearing.
Reversed and remanded.