Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the claimant sought judicial review of the Workers’ Compensation Board's decision affirming an Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) refusal to postpone a hearing due to claimant's absence. Initially, the claimant's hearing was postponed following the withdrawal of her original attorney. A new hearing was scheduled, but both the claimant and her newly retained attorney failed to appear due to a calendaring oversight by the attorney’s assistant. The employer moved for dismissal, which the ALJ granted, citing abandonment under OAR 438-006-0071(2). The ALJ allowed a request for reconsideration, which was denied, as no extraordinary circumstances justified a postponement. The Board affirmed the ALJ's decision, concluding no abuse of discretion occurred. On appeal, the claimant argued the Board erred by not evaluating extraordinary circumstances de novo. The statutes require an ALJ to dismiss a hearing request absent extraordinary circumstances, which the Board failed to assess independently. Consequently, the ruling was reversed and remanded for further consideration of whether extraordinary circumstances existed to warrant a postponement.
Legal Issues Addressed
Discretionary Authority of ALJ under OAR 438-006-0071subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The ALJ has discretionary authority to dismiss a hearing request for abandonment or unjustified failure to attend, which is subject to review for abuse of discretion.
Reasoning: Under OAR 438-006-0071(1), an ALJ may dismiss a request for hearing if it finds the request has been abandoned or if there has been an unjustified delay.
Mandatory Dismissal for Failure to Appearsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The ALJ found the claimant's failure to appear unjustified, leading to a mandatory dismissal of the request, unless extraordinary circumstances warranted a postponement.
Reasoning: The ALJ found the claimant's failure to appear unjustified, leading to a mandatory dismissal of the request under OAR 438-006-0071(2), unless extraordinary circumstances warranted a postponement.
Postponement of Hearings under OAR 438-006-0081subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Postponements require an ALJ's order based on extraordinary circumstances, which was not demonstrated by the claimant's attorney's calendaring error.
Reasoning: OAR 438-006-0081(1) stipulates that postponements require an ALJ's order based on extraordinary circumstances. The ALJ ruled that a calendaring error by the claimant’s attorney’s assistant did not qualify as such and reinstated the dismissal.
Review Process for Extraordinary Circumstancessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The board should evaluate the existence of extraordinary circumstances de novo rather than for abuse of discretion, as OAR 438-006-0071(2) and OAR 438-006-0081(1) do not grant the ALJ discretion regarding extraordinary circumstances.
Reasoning: However, the review process was contested, as the board should have evaluated the existence of extraordinary circumstances de novo rather than for abuse of discretion.