Bundy v. Nustar GP LLC

ORS 656.019 “imposes a procedural limitation on when the claims described in the statute can be brought” and does not create an exception to the exclusive remedy provision of ORS 656.018.

Bundy appealed the dismissal of his civil action regarding a workplace injury. Bundy assigned error to the trial court’s grant of Nustar GP LLC’s (Nustar) motion to dismiss. On appeal, Bundy argued that ORS 656.019 created a substantive exception to the exclusive remedy provision for workers’ compensation claims in ORS 656.018, “restor[ing] a common-law right to bring a negligence claim that had been replaced by the workers’ compensation remedy.” In response, Nustar argued that “ORS 656.019(1)(b) disavowed any intent to create substantive rights.” ORS 656.019 “imposes a procedural limitation on when the claims described in the statute can be brought” and does not create an exception to the exclusive remedy provision of ORS 656.018. The Court found that the legislature enacted ORS 656.019 against the backdrop of an Oregon Supreme Court decision that declared the exclusive remedy of ORS 656.018 unconstitutional. The legislative history demonstrated the legislature’s intent that ORS 656.019 require workers “exhaust[ ] a workers’ compensation remedy * * * before pursuing a civil action.” The Court further reasoned that the express disclaimer in ORS 656.019(1)(b) that the subsection did not “grant a right for a person to pursue a civil negligence action that does not otherwise exist in law” further evinced the legislature’s intent to impose a timing limitation, rather than confer a substantive right. Affirmed.