From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

EBI Insurance v. CNA Insurance

Oregon Court of Appeals
Mar 8, 1989
769 P.2d 789 (Or. Ct. App. 1989)

Summary

affirming board order holding that report reflecting acceptance of claim was not intended to be an acceptance

Summary of this case from Scott v. Sports Auth., Inc. (In re Comp. of Scott)

Opinion

WCB 86-12728, 86-03222; CA A47014

Argued and submitted October 17, 1988

Affirmed March 8, 1989

Judicial Review from Workers' Compensation Board.

Susan D. Isaacs, Portland, argued the cause for petitioners. On the brief was Randy G. Rice, Portland.

Craig A. Staples, Portland, argued the cause for respondents CNA Insurance and Tandy Corporation. With him on the brief was Roberts, Reinisch Klor, P.C., Portland.

Glen J. Lasken, Portland, waived appearance for respondent Richard B. Nehring.

Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Newman and Deits, Judges.


RICHARDSON, P.J.

Affirmed.


Don Rasmussen BMW (Rasmussen) seeks review of an order of the Workers' Compensation Board that affirmed the referee's order overturning a denial of claimant's aggravation claim. It contends that Tandy Corporation (Tandy), a subsequent employer, is responsible because it accepted claimant's new injury claim, and its later denial is therefore barred by Bauman v. SAIF, 295 Or. 788, 670 P.2d 1027 (1983). We affirm.

Claimant sustained a compensable back injury in 1983 while employed by Rasmussen. During his subsequent employment with Tandy, he began experiencing back pain and his treating chiropractor notified Rasmussen that he had suffered an aggravation. Rasmussen denied the claim, and claimant then filed a new injury claim with Tandy, which it denied by letter. Subsequently, Tandy filed two reports with the Workers' Compensation Division on a Form 1502. The first indicated that the claim against Tandy was denied, but the second stated "claim originally denied, now accepted." Two days later, Tandy filed a third Form 1502 that explained that the notation on the second form was a clerical error and that the claim was in a denied status.

The referee found that claimant's current condition is an aggravation of the 1983 injury sustained while working at Rasmussen and ordered Rasmussen to accept the claim. The Board affirmed that part of the decision.

Rasmussen does not challenge the finding that claimant's condition is an aggravation of the original injury, but contends that Tandy is responsible, because it accepted the claim when it noted its acceptance on the Form 1502.

A witness explained that the Form 1502 is a report to the Workers' Compensation Division of the current status of a claim. It is not a notification to a claimant that the claim is accepted or denied. The form was not intended to be a notification to claimant of anything. In Bauman v. SAIF, supra, the court said:

"If, as in this case, the insurer officially notifies the claimant that the claim has been accepted, the insurer may not, after the 60 days have elapsed, deny the compensability of the claim * * *." 295 Or at 794.

Official notice of acceptance or denial is described by ORS 656.262 (6) and must include certain information and advice to the claimant. We conclude that the information on the Form 1502 was not an official notice of acceptance.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

EBI Insurance v. CNA Insurance

Oregon Court of Appeals
Mar 8, 1989
769 P.2d 789 (Or. Ct. App. 1989)

affirming board order holding that report reflecting acceptance of claim was not intended to be an acceptance

Summary of this case from Scott v. Sports Auth., Inc. (In re Comp. of Scott)

In EBI Ins. Co., the claimant argued that the employer had accepted his new injury claim when it filed a report with the Workers' Compensation division on a form that said "claim originally denied, now accepted."

Summary of this case from SAIF Corp. v. Tull
Case details for

EBI Insurance v. CNA Insurance

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Compensation of Richard B. Nehring, Claimant. EBI…

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Mar 8, 1989

Citations

769 P.2d 789 (Or. Ct. App. 1989)
769 P.2d 789

Citing Cases

SAIF Corp. v. Tull

See ORS 656.262(6). The dissent reaches an issue that is not framed by SAIF's assignment of error; moreover,…

Scott v. Sports Auth., Inc. (In re Comp. of Scott)

Claimant does not dispute that finding or its relevance to the factual determination whether the conditions…