Coria , 315 Or App at 552, 500 P.3d 42. In addressing that issue, the Court of Appeals noted that Peggy J. Baker —one of the decisions cited by the board—had relied, in turn, on Anfilofieff v. SAIF , 52 Or App 127, 627 P.2d 1274 (1981), and Nix v. SAIF , 80 Or App 656, 723 P.2d 366, rev. den. , 302 Or. 158, 727 P.2d 128 (1986). In those two cases, the court had construed a predecessor to ORS 656.262(11)(a) and upheld penalties against an insurer where the employer had provided false information or delayed in reporting a compensable accident contrary to statute.

The board “acknowledge[d] that the express language of ORS 656.210(2)(b)(A) provides that notice must be received by the ‘insurer,’ ” but stated that “it is well settled that, with respect to the processing of claims, notice provided by a claimant to an insured employer may be imputed to the insurer.” (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing SAIF v. Abbott, 103 Or.App. 49, 53, 796 P.2d 378 (1990), modified on recons., 107 Or.App. 53, 810 P.2d 878 (1991) ; Nix v. SAIF, 80 Or.App. 656, 660, 723 P.2d 366, rev. den., 302 Or. 158, 727 P.2d 128 (1986) ; Anfilofieff v. SAIF, 52 Or.App. 127, 134–35, 627 P.2d 1274 (1981) ). The board determined that, under the circumstances of this case, “the employer's failure to provide timely, correct, and complete information to the insurer did not insulate the insurer from its processing responsibilities.”

In addressing that issue, the Court of Appeals noted that Peggy J. Baker-one of the decisions cited by the board-had relied, in turn, on Anfilofieff v. SAIF, 52 Or.App. 127, 627 P.2d 1274 (1981), and Nix v. SAIF, 80 Or.App. 656, 723 P.2d 366, rev den, 302 Or. 158 (1986). In those two cases, the court had construed a predecessor to ORS 656.262(11)(a) and upheld penalties against an insurer where the employer had provided false information or delayed in reporting a compensable accident contrary to statute.

SAIF also argues that, even if the evidence was insufficient to conclude that employer terminated claimant for disciplinary reasons, ORS 656.262(11) does "not permit the board to assess a penalty against the insurer under an imputed knowledge theory." SAIF argues that Anfilofieff v. SAIF , 52 Or.App. 127, 627 P.2d 1274 (1981), "is patently wrong and should be overruled." For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the board did not err in reinstating claimant's TTD benefits.

SAIF also argues that, even if the evidence was insufficient to conclude that employer terminated claimant for disciplinary reasons, ORS 656.262(11) does "not permit the board to assess a penalty against the insurer under an imputed knowledge theory." SAIF argues that Anfilofieffv. SAIF, 52 Or.App. 127, 627 P.2d 1274 (1981), "is patently wrong and should be overruled." For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the board did not err in reinstating claimant's TTD benefits.

They argue, however, that his employment was casual and that the work at the house was outside the course of the trade, business or profession of his employer. We addressed a similar issue in Anfilofieff v. SAIF, 52 Or. App. 127, 627 P.2d 1274 (1981), where the claimant worked as a carpenter on a housing project. He was injured while nailing metal siding on a bathhouse located at his employer's home.

The Board held that, once SAIF had notice of the claim, it had acted reasonably by promptly processing it. Although SAIF may have proceeded correctly after receiving notice of the claim, the fact remains that claimant was not served by the workers' compensation system as he had a right to be. Compensation was not paid within 14 days of the accident, because employer failed to report the accident within five days, as required by ORS 656.262(3). That conduct of the employer was unreasonable and is legally attributable to his insurer, SAIF. See Anfilofieff v. SAIF, 52 Or. App. 127, 627 P.2d 1274 (1981). In Anfilofieff, the employer did not truthfully report the cause of claimant's injury or his relationship with claimant to SAIF, leading to a denial of the claim.

” (Footnote omitted; emphasis in original.) As support, the board cited three Court of Appeals cases “dealing with ‘imputation’ between an employer and its insurer”: Anfilofieff v. SAIF , 52 Or.App. 127, 627 P.2d 1274 (1981) ; Nix v. SAIF , 80 Or.App. 656, 723 P.2d 366, rev. den. , 302 Or. 158, 727 P.2d 128 (1986) ; and SAIF v. Abbott , 103 Or.App. 49, 796 P.2d 378 (1990), modified on recons. , 107 Or.App. 53, 810 P.2d 878 (1991).

Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and James, Judge.PER CURIAMAffirmed. Nix v. SAIF , 80 Or. App. 656, 723 P.2d 366, rev. den. , 302 Or. 158, 727 P.2d 128 (1986) ; Anfilofieff v. SAIF , 52 Or. App. 127, 627 P.2d 1274 (1981).

PER CURIAMAffirmed. Nix v. SAIF, 80 Or App 656, 723 P2d 366, rev den, 302 Or 158 (1986); Anfilofieff v. SAIF, 52 Or App 127, 627 P2d 1274 (1981).