Bundy v. NuStar GP LLC

“If, after consideration of text, context, and legislative history, the intent of the legislature remains unclear, then the court may resort to general maxims of statutory construction to aid in resolving the remaining uncertainty.” PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 612 (1993).

NuStar accepted Bundy’s initial workers’ compensation claim following “non-disabling exposure to gasoline vapors,” but denied his subsequent claims for later health problems because the exposure did not cause the additional conditions. Bundy asserted negligence-related claims against NuStar, who moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim in light of the exclusive-remedy statute, ORS 656.018, for which no “substantive exception” existed. The trial court ruled in NuStar’s favor, and Bundy appealed. Bundy assigned error to the ruling, arguing ORS 656.019 established a substantive exception to the exclusive-remedy provision in ORS 656.018. “If, after consideration of text, context, and legislative history, the intent of the legislature remains unclear, then the court may resort to general maxims of statutory construction to aid in resolving the remaining uncertainty.” PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 612 (1993). The Court found ORS 656.019(1)(a) was intended to set forth procedural rules for civil negligence claims, not to provide an exclusive-remedy exception. The text of ORS 656.019(1)(b) further supported a conclusion that ORS 656.019(1)(a) did not create a right to bring a civil negligence action beyond what has already been established in Smothers v. Gresham Transfer, Inc., 332 Or 83 (2001), overruled in part by Horton v. OHSU, 359 Or 168 (2016). The trial court therefore properly dismissed the complaint. Affirmed.