She relies on Norton v. Compensation Department, 252 Or. 75, 448 P.2d 382 (1968), and Madewell v. Salvation Army, 49 Or. App. 713, 620 P.2d 953 (1980). Those cases, however, are not helpful to her, and she overlooks Bergeron v. Ontario Rendering Co., 34 Or. App. 1025, 580 P.2d 216, rev den 284 Or. 80 (1978), in concluding that they are helpful. By analogy, Norton supports EBI's position, rather than claimant's.

In other contexts, it has been held that "filed" means received by the person or tribunal with which filing is required. See In re Wagner's Estate, 182 Or. 340, 342, 187 P.2d 669 (1947); Barr v. EBI Companies, 88 Or. App. 132, 744 P.2d 582 (1987); Hoffman v. City of Portland, 57 Or. App. 688, 691, 646 P.2d 49, rev'd on other grounds, 294 Or. 150, 654 P.2d 1106 (1982); Bergeron v. Ontario Rendering Co., 34 Or. App. 1025, 580 P.2d 216, rev den 284 Or. 80 (1978); Williams v. Cody, 24 Or. App. 433, 545 P.2d 905 (1976). In the absence of any contrary expression of legislative intent, we agree with Department that the legislature intended that merely mailing a request for appeal did not constitute making an appeal under ORS 737.505(4).