Robles v. SAIF

Under ORS 183.482(a) and (c), a court may affirm, reverse, or remand orders if it finds that the agency erroneously interpreted the provision, or set aside orders that do not have substantial evidence supporting the finding of fact.

Claimant filed a petition for reconsideration of a per curiam opinion on the remand from Robles v. SAIF, 362 Or 38 (2017), affirming the SAIF board's order. Claimant assigned error to "the board's failure 'to consider the accepted L5-S1 radiculopathy and L5-S1 radiculitis when it determined that the compensable injury was no longer a major contributing cause of the combined condition.'" On appeal, Claimant argued that the board erroneously looked at the Notice of Acceptance rather than at the settlement stipulation and claims that the settlement unambiguously demonstrated that SAIF accepted the radiculopathy as part of his injury. Under ORS 183.482(a) and (c), a court may affirm, reverse, or remand orders if it finds that the agency erroneously interpreted the provision; or set aside orders that do not have substantial evidence supporting the finding of fact. The Court of Appeals rejected Robles' arguments because the difference in wording of the stipulation and the notice of acceptance did not materially alter the meaning of the writings, and because neither party introduced evidence at court that the board could have used to resolve the ambiguity of the wording. Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified.