You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Larsen v. Osmose Wood Preserving

Citations: 306 Or. 563; 762 P.2d 289Docket: WCB 85-15043; CA A42397; SC S34792

Court: Oregon Supreme Court; September 20, 1988; Oregon; State Supreme Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The case concerns the applicability of a 1987 amendment to ORS 656.236(2), which prohibits charging court costs to workers' compensation claimants. The central issue is whether the amendment applies to a case where the Court of Appeals had decided the merits before the amendment's effective date. In late 1986, the claimant sought judicial review of a Workers' Compensation Board order, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the board's decision on September 23, 1987. The employer filed a cost bill the next day, which the claimant contested based on the upcoming amendment. However, the court determined that the amendment does not apply retroactively to cases where the right to recover costs arose before its effective date, as retroactive application would contradict legislative intent. The court upheld the decision in Compton v. Weyerhaeuser, allowing the employer to recover costs under the prior law. The claimant's petition for review was initially denied but reconsidered in light of Fromme v. Fred Meyer, Inc., which confirmed the prospective application of the amendment. Ultimately, the court affirmed the Court of Appeals' order permitting costs against the claimant.

Legal Issues Addressed

Application of Amendments to Statutory Provisions

Application: The 1987 amendment to ORS 656.236(2), which prohibits charging court costs to workers' compensation claimants, applies prospectively to cases where the right to recover costs arises after the amendment's effective date.

Reasoning: In a related case, Fromme v. Fred Meyer, Inc., the court ruled that the 1987 amendment applies prospectively, meaning it prohibits cost awards in cases where the right to recover costs arose after the amendment's effective date.

Assessment of Court Costs under Prior Law

Application: Under the law prior to the 1987 amendment, courts had the authority to assess costs against unsuccessful workers' compensation claimants, as affirmed by Compton v. Weyerhaeuser.

Reasoning: Prior to the amendment, the court had the authority to assess costs against unsuccessful workers' compensation claimants under ORS 20.120, as established in Compton v. Weyerhaeuser.

Retroactive Application of Legislation

Application: The amendment does not apply retroactively to cases where the right to recover costs arose before the amendment's effective date, as this would contradict legislative intent.

Reasoning: However, in the current case, the right to recover costs arose before the amendment, implying that applying the amendment retroactively would contradict legislative intent.