Coleman v. SAIF

Under ORS 656.267(1), a new medical condition claim can be initiated “at any time,” hindered by ORS 656.267(2)(a) which states: only properly initiated claims “related to an initially accepted claim” are subject to the time restraints of ORS 656.262. When new medical condition claims are instituted before the first claim has been accepted, the procedure for those additional claims is “just like any other claim,” which means the 60 day turn around does not apply. Johansen v. SAIF, 158 Or. App. 672, 681, 976 P.2d 84, adh’d to on recons, 160 Or. App. 579, 987 P.2d 524, rev den, 329 Or 527 (1999).

Claimant appealed the Worker’s Compensation Board’s order which held Claimant’s femoral chondral defect an invalid “new medical condition claim” under ORS 656.267(1).  Claimant assigned error to the Board’s interpretation of the connection between ORS 656.262 and ORS 656.267.  Claimant argued that because ORS 656.267(1) states he could start a new claim “at any time,” SAIF then needed to respond to that alleged new claim within 60 days under ORS 656.262 whether or not SAIF accepted Claimant’s first claim.  SAIF argued the Board was correct in denying Claimant’s new claim as being premature because, under ORS 656.267(2)(a), initial claim acceptance is necessary before SAIF ever had a duty to respond to Claimant’s additional claim.  Under ORS 656.267(1), a new medical condition claim can be initiated “at any time,” hindered by ORS 656.267(2)(a) which states: only properly initiated claims “related to an initially accepted claim” are subject to the time restraints of ORS 656.262.  When new medical condition claims are instituted before the first claim has been accepted, the procedure for those additional claims is “just like any other claim,” which means the 60 day turn around does not apply. Johansen v. SAIF, 158 Or. App. 672, 681, 976 P.2d 84, adh’d to on recons, 160 Or. App. 579, 987 P.2d 524, rev den, 329 Or 527 (1999).  The Court held that even though Johansen was interpreting a different statute, whose language has since been removed, the interpretation was applicable to this case because that language has since been adopted in ORS 656.267(1) in a practically indistinguishable manner.  Affirmed.