Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Wacker Siltronic Corp. v. Satcher
Citations: 1990 Ore. App. LEXIS 1293; 103 Or. App. 513; 798 P.2d 264Docket: 87-03768; CA A62476
Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon; October 3, 1990; Oregon; State Appellate Court
In this workers’ compensation case, the employer sought to challenge the Workers’ Compensation Board’s order that upheld the referee’s imposition of penalties and attorney fees due to unreasonable delays in paying for medical services. The court reversed the Board’s decision. The employer had contested the referee’s order that deemed the claimant’s injury compensable and subsequently denied payment for chiropractic services during the pending review. The referee ruled against the employer's denial, but the employer did not seek further review and failed to pay the medical services within the mandated 60 days. Consequently, the referee imposed penalties and attorney fees for non-compliance, which the Board affirmed. Under ORS 656.262(10), employers are liable for penalties and attorney fees if they unreasonably delay or refuse to pay compensation. However, ORS 656.313 specifies that a request for review does not stay the payment of compensation to a claimant, and importantly, medical services are not classified as compensation while the review of the injury's compensability is ongoing. Therefore, the court found no grounds for awarding penalties or attorney fees since the medical services could not be deemed compensation during the review period. The court also noted that the claimant raised an argument regarding acupuncture services, but since the employer's challenge pertained only to the chiropractic services, that issue was not addressed. Additionally, the court acknowledged an amendment to ORS 656.313 effective July 1, 1990, but confirmed that it was not applicable to this case. Ultimately, the court concluded that while the referee’s order became final, it did not alter the classification of medical services under the law during the pending review.