Double Tree Hotel v. Ansarinezhad

The plain and unambiguous text of the ORS 656.256 shows that the only plausible reading of the phrase “notice as required by this section” under subsection (4) is that such notice refers to the “notice of an accident” described in the preceding subsections (1), (2), and (3). 316 Or App 51 (2021).

Employer petitioned for judicial review of a final order of the Workers’ Compensation Board that affirmed an administrative law judge’s order to set aside employer’s denial of claimant’s injury claim. Employer assigned error to the interpretation of ORS 656.256. Employer argued that “notice required by this section,” referred to notice of a claim, as opposed to notice of an accident. On appeal, Employee argued that she satisfied the “notice” requirement articulated in ORS 656.256(4) when she informed Employer of the accident. In response, Employer argued that the statute demands notice of the claim, not just the accident. “The plain and unambiguous text of the statute shows that the only plausible reading of the phrase “notice as required by this section” under subsection (4) is that such notice refers to the “notice of an accident” described in the preceding subsections (1), (2), and (3).” 316 Or App 51 (2021). Affirmed.