Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the employer sought review of a Workers’ Compensation Board order that denied remand for a hearing and approved a disputed claim settlement (DCS) involving a noncomplying employer status. The claimant sustained two injuries, first in 1988 and another in 1990. The Department of Insurance and Finance (DIF) declared the employer a noncomplying employer after the employer failed to timely appeal. Consequently, the claim was referred to SAIF, which accepted the claim. Later, a DCS was reached between DIF, SAIF, and the claimant, granting the claimant $28,000, without the employer's consent. The employer challenged this settlement, arguing it required their consent under ORS 656.289(4), and sought remand for determining insurance coverage responsibility. The court vacated the part of the order approving the DCS due to the lack of employer consent, affirming the rest of the decision. The Board determined that the employer's status as a noncomplying employer was final and unreviewable due to failure to contest within the statutory period specified in ORS 656.740. This case underscores the necessity of timely asserting appeal rights and clarifies the requirement for a noncomplying employer's consent in disputed claim settlements, as well as the non-retroactive application of statutory amendments.
Legal Issues Addressed
Consent Requirement for Disputed Claim Settlements under ORS 656.289(4)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court vacated the approval of the settlement because the noncomplying employer did not consent, contrary to statutory requirements.
Reasoning: Trojan Concrete v. Tallant, it was established that a noncomplying employer must agree to any binding settlement under ORS 656.289(4).
Interpretation of Employer Liability for Costs under ORS 656.054(1)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: An employer's liability for costs is only applicable to injuries where the employer failed to request a hearing, not to all amounts from a settlement.
Reasoning: If the employer were liable under ORS 656.054(1), their liability would pertain only to costs from the 1988 injury, not the 1990 injury, as the employer failed to request a hearing for the former.
Noncomplying Employer Status and Appeal Rights under ORS 656.740subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The employer's failure to contest the noncomplying status within the statutory timeframe rendered the order final and unreviewable.
Reasoning: The Board affirmed the referee’s decision, noting that the employer's argument about being a noncomplying employer was based on a right to appeal that he did not exercise in a timely manner.
Retrospective Application of Statutory Amendments under ORS 656.054subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The 1991 amendment to ORS 656.054 could not retroactively affect the employer’s rights regarding claims predating the amendment.
Reasoning: Thus, since the claimant's injuries occurred in 1988 and 1990, the 1991 amendment is not applicable.