Hayes-Godt v. Scott Wetzel Services

3 Citing cases

  1. Farmers Ins. Group v. Saif

    76 Or. App. 494 (Or. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 1 times

    We disagree. The "processing" of a workers' compensation claim includes allowing or denying and closing it; the legislature simply eliminated unnecessary words. See Hayes-Godt v. Scott Wetzel Services, 71 Or. App. 175, 179 n 2, 691 P.2d 919 (1984), rev den 299 Or. 118 (1985). We also decline to apply a different rule to survivor's claims, as petitioner suggests.

  2. Ford v. Saif

    693 P.2d 1339 (Or. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 1 times

    In Inkley v. Forest Fiber Products Co., 288 Or. 337, 347, 605 P.2d 1175 (1980), the court held that ORS 656.265(4) is applicable to occupational diseases claims. See also Hayes-Godt v. Scott Wetzel Services, 71 Or. App. 175, 691 P.2d 919 (1984). The burden of proving prejudice is on the employer.

  3. ARGONAUT INSURANCE CO. v. MOCK

    768 P.2d 401 (Or. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 9 times
    In Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Mock (A41801), 95 Or. App. 1, 768 P.2d 401, rev den 308 Or. 79 (1989), this court said that the employer's "knowledge of the injury" under ORS 656.265(4)(a)

    One or the other must exist to avoid a claim being barred. If the employer had knowledge of the injury, the claim is not barred, even if the employer was prejudiced by the late filing of the claim. Hayes-Godt v. Scott Wetzel Services, 71 Or. App. 175, 691 P.2d 919 (1984), rev den 299 Or. 118 (1985). Claimant has the burden of proving that employer had knowledge of the injury, Baldwin v. Thatcher Construction, 49 Or. App. 421, 619 P.2d 682 (1980), but employer has the burden of establishing that it was prejudiced by the delay.