Preble v. Centennial School Dist. No. 287

"When confronted with multiple statutes that appear to conflict, courts are obliged to engage in a two part-analysis; [f]irst, they must determine whether there is any way to reconcile the apparent conflict without exceeding the bounds of reasonable construction of the wording of the statutes. . . Second, if such harmonizing is not possible, then the courts must apply established rules of construction that give precedence to one of the conflicting statutes over the other." See, e.g., Powers v. Quigley, 345 Or 432, 438, 198 P3d 919 (2008); State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. M. T., 321 Or 419, 426, 899 P2d 1192 (1995).

Plaintiff appealed the trial court’s decision to grant a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's workers' compensation claim.  Plaintiff assigned error to the trial court's decision to adhere to ORS 30.275(9) rather than ORS 656.019(2)(a) to determine whether Plaintiff filed her claim within the statute of limitations.  On appeal, Plaintiff argued that ORS 656.019(2)(a) controls because it is the more particular provision and more recently enacted statute. In response, Defendant argued that ORS 30.275(9) clearly states the exceptions to the statute of limitations and does not include ORS 6565.019(2)(a).  "When confronted with multiple statutes that appear to conflict, courts are obliged to engage in a two part-analysis; [f]irst, they must determine whether there is any way to reconcile the apparent conflict without exceeding the bounds of reasonable construction of the wording of the statutes. . . Second, if such harmonizing is not possible, then the courts must apply established rules of construction that give precedence to one of the conflicting statutes over the other." See, e.g., Powers v. Quigley, 345 Or 432, 438, 198 P3d 919 (2008); State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. M. T., 321 Or 419, 426, 899 P2d 1192 (1995).  The Court held that the trial court erred in granting Defendant's motion to dismiss because ORS 656.019(2)(a) was the later-enacted statute, and that any claims that Plaintiff failed to carry the burden of proving the workers' compensation claim fail because Defendant would effectively be bringing a first time claim before the Court.  Reversed and remanded.