YRC Worldwide, Inc. v. Corrigan

We are further persuaded that, in light of the statute’s enactment history and the removal of a “living apart” requirement from the first sentence, the legislature did not intend “living separate and apart” to be a prerequisite under the first sentence of the statute.

The employer sought a review of the Workers’ Compensation Board’s decision overturning the denial of survivor benefits. The employer argued that the claimant fell under an exception in the definition of beneficiary. While the claimant was legally married, but separated, to the decedent at the time of death, they had been living "in a state of abandonment" for over a year before the injury. “We are further persuaded that, in light of the statute’s enactment history and the removal of a “living apart” requirement from the first sentence, the legislature did not intend “living separate and apart” to be a prerequisite under the first sentence of the statute.” The Court found that the Board had erred in reversing the employer’s denial of survivor benefits by focusing solely on whether the claimant and decedent had shared a residence during the year before the injury. The Court reasoned that while "living separate and apart" was a condition under ORS § 656.005(2)(b)(A), it was not a necessary condition for the "living in a state of abandonment" exception being applied here. The Court held that the Board should have examined whether the parties’ conduct over time indicated an intent to abandon their marital relationship for more than one year. Reversed and remanded.