State Accident Insurance Fund Corp. v. Mathews
Docket: WCB No. 81-06365; CA A27331
Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon; December 13, 1983; Oregon; State Appellate Court
SAIF appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board order confirming responsibility for a claimant's aggravation of a back injury sustained while employed as a clean-up man, covered by SAIF. The claimant injured his back on February 28, 1978, and after being released with no permanent impairment, later took a job with Carothers Sheet Metal Co. Symptoms worsened without a specific incident while at Carothers. The claimant reported increased pain to Dr. Gorman on August 18, 1978, but did not appeal a subsequent denial from SAIF regarding responsibility for this worsening condition. In December 1978, the claimant filed a claim with Carothers, which was accepted as nondisabling. After continued work without lost time due to the injury, the claimant entered into a disputed claim settlement with Carothers in December 1981, recognizing a dispute over the aggravation claim. SAIF argued it was not liable for three reasons: (1) Carothers’ acceptance of the nondisabling claim cut off SAIF's future liability, (2) the disputed claim settlement with Carothers barred recovery against SAIF to prevent double benefits, and (3) under precedent, Carothers should be deemed the responsible employer. The decision held that SAIF remained liable for future aggravations despite Carothers’ acceptance of the claim. The acceptance did not preclude Carothers from proving the aggravation was related to the original injury. Ultimately, the determination of responsibility for the most recent aggravation required weighing evidence between the two employers. SAIF's second argument regarding the settlement's impact on recovery against it was not definitively clear. The parties involved in the disputed claim settlement disagree on liability but agree to settle for a specific amount. SAIF contends that the claimant did not relinquish any rights but gained a benefit from this settlement. However, the claimant did give up the right to pursue recovery against Carothers. If Carothers were found responsible for the claimant's condition, the claimant would be barred from recovering against them due to the settlement. The statutes do not allow for deducting the settlement amount from any future recovery from another liable party, which may appear as double recovery but is permitted by law. Therefore, entering into the disputed claim settlement does not prevent the claimant from recovering from SAIF. SAIF further argues that the claimant experienced a new injury at Carothers, making them liable for the current aggravation, but the medical evidence does not support this claim. The majority of evidence indicates that the latest aggravation is linked to the original injury, for which SAIF is accountable. The decision is affirmed.