Summary
In SAIF v. VanLanen, 120 Or. App. 613, 852 P.2d 281 (1993), on recon 127 Or. App. 346 (1994), we held that, under ORS 656.313, SAIF's request for Board review regarding compensability entitled it to stay payment of TTD that accrued from the date of claim denial until the referee's compensability order became final, and that SAIF's failure to request reconsideration or review of the determination order did not affect the stay.
Summary of this case from Saif v. VanlanenOpinion
91-13600; CA A76539
Argued and submitted April 21, 1993
Reversed and remanded for reconsideration June 2, 1993
Judicial Review from Workers' Compensation Board.
Michael O. Whitty, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the brief were Charles S. Crookham, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Julie K. Bolt, Special Assistant Attorney General, Salem.
Steven T. Fagenstrom, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Galton, Scott Colett, Portland.
Before Deits, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Durham, Judges.
PER CURIAM
Reversed and remanded for reconsideration.
Employer seeks review of an order of the Workers' Compensation Board holding that its request for review of a May 3, 1991, decision of the referee did not stay payment of benefits subsequently awarded by an August 15, 1991, determination order. We conclude that, under ORS 656.313, employer's May 23, 1991, appeal of the referee's order on compensability did stay payment of benefits awarded by the later determination order. Diamond Fruit Growers v. Goss, 120 Or. App. 390, 852 P.2d 915 (1993). Therefore, we reverse the Board's order.
Reversed and remanded for reconsideration.