Author: Kevin Anderson
WCD Reviewing Rules Pertaining to IME’s and WRME’s
The WCD held a meeting to take public comment on the administrative rules related to Independent Medical Exams (IME’s) and Worker Requested Medical Exams (WRME’s). Some of the more lively discussions centered around whether IME providers should be required to produce their report within a certain time frame with…
New Average Weekly Wage Calculation Rules
The Workers’ Compensation Division recently issued new rules for calculating average weekly wage. The new rules will apply to claims with dates of injury on or after February 21, 2018. Under the new rule: When a worker is paid irregular wages and there is an increase or decrease in the worker’s…
Oregon Court of Appeals further defines susceptibilities or predispositions vs. preexisting conditions.
The Oregon Court of Appeals recently decided another case addressing what qualifies as a preexisting condition. Doris L. Lowells v. SAIF, 285 Or App 161 (2017). In Lowells, the court confirmed “chronic pain disorder” was not a compensable occupational disease because the major cause of the condition was claimant’s weight,…
Oregon WCD issues Temporary Rules Clarifying Claim Closure Requirements
In our efforts to keep you apprised of the latest developments regarding the Oregon Supreme Court’s decision in Brown (see Andrew’s blog on the case here.) and how the decision could affect claim processing (see Megan’s blog on the issue here.), we are forwarding the temporary administrative rules issued by…
New 801 Form and Medical Treatment
You may have noticed, the Oregon Workers’ Compensation Division has revised the standard Form-801 “Report of Job Injury or Illness.” This form is the normal starting place for many claims and used throughout the claims administration process. The new revisions include acknowledgements by both the worker and employer regarding the worker’s…
Changes to Oregon Employer-at-Injury Program effective as of January 1, 2017
OAR 436-105 explains who qualifies for and how to request assistance and reimbursement from the Employer-at-Injury Program (EAIP). The EAIP encourages early return to work by providing incentives to employers from the Workers’ Benefit Fund. Several changes were made to the EAIP administrative rules and vocational assistance rules. The following…
Oregon WCD Proposes Rule Changes
The WCD is seeking input on three topics before the end of August. Proposed rules would be drafted and discussed at a public meeting in the fall. Any input now helps the WCD draft clearer and more helpful rules, or avoid drafting rules if there is a statutory conflict of…
Attorney Fee Proposals
The Workers’ Compensation Board is moving forward with several changes in attorney fee rules. Formal rules will be drafted and reviewed at a public hearing this fall. The board welcomes any input, comments, or concerns with these rules. These rules will not be effective until after the public hearing. If…
When is a worker a “subject worker?”
The vast majority of workers in Oregon will be subject to the workers compensation system, with some exceptions. It is important to consider whether an injured worker is a subject worker when investigating the claim. Two recent cases address this important question. Carpenter hired to remodel apartment on a couple’s farm not…
Attorney Fees for Claimant Statements/Depositions
As of January 1, 2016, worker’s attorneys have been entitled to a new hourly attorney fee for “actual time spent during the personal or telephonic interview or deposition.” ORS 656.262(14)(a). These statements are taken as a part of the injured worker’s duty to cooperate with the investigation of a claim….
Oregon Legislature begins Short Session
The Oregon Legislature met on February 1, 2016 beginning a 35-day “Short Session.” In 2010, Oregon approved these sessions in even numbered years to allow the legislature to make corrections in its two year budgets. These sessions have increasingly been used to make new policy changes though. Here are a…
Court of Appeals confirms no permanent disability awarded when work injury has no contribution to claimant’s impairment.
There have been many new issues in claim processing and particularly in rating permanent impairment after Brown/Schleiss and the WCD’s new closure rules. One particular argument we have seen from claimant’s counsel is that all of a worker’s physical limitations (restricted range of motion, loss of sensation, etc.) should be…
Active Preexisting Conditions or Passive Predispositions – How Do I Tell the Difference?
A few months ago, we discussed a new Court of Appeals case addressing preexisting conditions. Dennis L. Corkum v. Bi-Mart Corp., 271 Or App 411 (2015). Our main concern was another court-made layer of analysis, specifically distinguishing “active” preexisting conditions and “passive” predispositions. A copy of that article can be…
Claimant’s Testimony of “Lifting Kegs” Not Enough for Increased Work Disability Award
A line cook was injured and his claim was closed with 11% whole person impairment and 27% work disability. On Reconsideration, the worker submitted an affidavit outlining his job duties. He claimed his job required physical activity qualifying for classification as “very heavy.” He described being required to lift full…
Oregon Legislature Increases Claimant’s Attorney Fees
The Oregon Legislature adjourned at the end of June and it is clear some major changes are coming for businesses, small and large, in the state. One of those changes is House Bill 2764, which significantly expands the attorney fees awarded to claimant’s attorneys in workers’ compensation claims. While there…
SBH Attorneys Present at WCCA Spring Conference
By Kevin Anderson I had the pleasure of presenting with my colleague Rebecca Watkins and Sheri Sundstrom from Hoffman Construction at the WCCA conference regarding the new claim closure rules from the WCD. For those of you unable to attend, themost important changes are that the attending physician must address the…
Why are Claimant’s Attorneys receiving a Fee when the ALJ affirms a Denial?
By: Kevin Anderson A claimant’s attorney received a fee for unsuccessfully challenging a new/omitted claim for “arthralgia.” Even though the de facto denial was ultimately upheld, the Court of Appeals agreed $1,500 was a reasonable attorney fee given the procedural delay in responding to claimant’s request. SAIF v. Emma R. Traner,…
New Administrative Rules Regarding Claim Closure effective March 1, 2015
By: Kevin Anderson The WCD has published new administrative rules responding to two recent court cases (Brown v. SAIF, 262 Or App 640 (2014); Schleiss v. SAIF, 364 Or 637 (2013)). The WCD initially proposed a broad-sweeping change that would link all claim benefits to the “work injury” instead of…
WCD Seeks Input on Significant Changes to OAR 436
By: Kevin Anderson Over the last few months, the Oregon Workers’ Compensation Division was considering making significant changes to OAR 436 in light of two recent court decisions. (Brown v. SAIF, 262 Or App 640 (2014); Schleiss v. SAIF, 364 Or 637 (2013). The WCD has decided to move forward…
Workers’ Compensation Division Proposes Drastic Overhaul to OAR 436
By: Kevin Anderson Back in May, we let you know about a Court of Appeals decision that could have drastic changes to processing combined conditions. Brown v. SAIF (2014). After Brown, the proper inquiry in analyzing a combined condition is whether the work injury ceased being the major cause of…
