Swint v. City of Springfield

“OAR 436-060-0150(5)(h) and (6) establish specific time frames for the payment of temporary disability benefits generally, and following an ALJ’s order. . . . Therefore, we evaluate each obligation separately in determining which of the multiple issues raised by claimant's hearing request are timely and may be addressed.” Armando Morin, 68 Van Natta 1760, 1764 (2016).

Claimant appealed the Workers’ Compensation Board denying him additional compensation. He originally received temporary disability benefits, but later disputed the amount saying that the city had incorrectly calculated his wage. Defendant assigned error to the board’s decision that his claim was time-barred. Defendant argued that the two-year limit was not from when he receives the notice letter, but each payment raised the issue again because each payment was a violation on the ongoing obligation to pay him. The city contended that the notice letter alone triggered the time limit. “OAR 436-060-0150(5)(h) and (6) establish specific time frames for the payment of temporary disability benefits generally, and following an ALJ’s order. . . . Therefore, we evaluate each obligation separately in determining which of the multiple issues raised by claimant's hearing request are timely and may be addressed.” Armando Morin, 68 Van Natta 1760, 1764 (2016). The Court found that claimant’s request was not time barred because the record shows "no basis to conclude that the city’s first check to the claimant involved a processing action or inaction that each subsequent check did not also involved.” Therefore, each payment “involve[s] a claim-processing action related to the city’s obligation under ORS 656.262(4)(b).” Reversed and remanded.