Wiggins v. SAIF

The standard in the form ("more than 2/3 of the time") was not the same as the WCD interpretation because under that interpretation, “a person is significantly limited in the repetitive use of a body part if the person ‘can use the body part repetitively for up to, but no more than, two-thirds of the time.’” Broeke v. SAIF, 300 Or App 91 (2019).

Claimant petitioned for review the Worker’s Compensation Board. Claimant appealed the Board's determination that Claimant was not entitled to penalties and attorney fees after the Board rejected Claimant’s argument that a form SAIF provided to his physician did not have the correct Workers’ Compensation Division standard for a “chronic condition” impairment. In response, SAIF argued the form “was sufficient to communicate [the] standard.” The standard in the form ("more than 2/3 of the time") was not the same as the WCD interpretation because under that interpretation, “a person is significantly limited in the repetitive use of a body part if the person ‘can use the body part repetitively for up to, but no more than, two-thirds of the time.’” Broeke v.  SAIF, 300 Or App 91 (2019).  The Court found that viewing the record as a whole, a reasonable person could not find that SAIF's form referred to WCD's interpretation of the chronic condition standard. Therefore, the Court held that the Board erred. Reversed and remanded.