Bergeron v. Ontario Rendering Co.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Bergeron v. Ontario Rendering Co.

580 P.2d 216, 34 Or. App. 1025, 1978 Ore. App. LEXIS 2634

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJune 20, 1978

DocketWCB No. 76-5459, CA 9690

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 580 P.2d 216 (Bergeron v. Ontario Rendering Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bergeron v. Ontario Rendering Co., 580 P.2d 216, 34 Or. App. 1025, 1978 Ore. App. LEXIS 2634 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

JOSEPH, J.

Claimant appeals an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board affirming an order of the referee, which dismissed claimant’s request for a hearing on the ground that it was not timely filed. The determination order from which claimant sought review was mailed to claimant by the Board on October 8, 1975. In May, 1976, a hearing was held at claimant’s request on the limited issues of temporary disability and medical treatment. On October 6,1976, claimant mailed to the Board and the employer by certified mail a request for a hearing and review of the determination order. The request was not received by the Board until October 11, more than one year from the date the determination order had been mailed.

ORS 656.319(2) provides:

"With respect to objections to a determination under subsection (3) of ORS 656.268, a hearing on such objections shall not be granted unless a request for hearing is filed within one year after the copies of the determination were mailed to the parties.”

Claimant argues that under ORS 656.283(2),¹ the mailing of the request within the one-year period was sufficient. In Norton v. Compensation Department, 252 Or 75, 448 P2d 382 (1968), the court was faced with essentially the same issue. In that case claimant’s request for a hearing was mailed within the period provided by ORS 656.319(l)(a),² but was not received by the Board until after that period had expired. The. request was held untimely.

[1028]*1028Claimant has shown no intervening and unavoidable cause for the delay in receipt of the request which might distinguish this case from Norton. The order of dismissal was proper.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

JOSEPH, J.

Claimant appeals an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board affirming an order of the referee, which dismissed claimant’s request for a hearing on the ground that it was not timely filed. The determination order from which claimant sought review was mailed to claimant by the Board on October 8, 1975. In May, 1976, a hearing was held at claimant’s request on the limited issues of temporary disability and medical treatment. On October 6,1976, claimant mailed to the Board and the employer by certified mail a request for a hearing and review of the determination order. The request was not received by the Board until October 11, more than one year from the date the determination order had been mailed.

ORS 656.319(2) provides:

"With respect to objections to a determination under subsection (3) of ORS 656.268, a hearing on such objections shall not be granted unless a request for hearing is filed within one year after the copies of the determination were mailed to the parties.”

Claimant argues that under ORS 656.283(2),¹ the mailing of the request within the one-year period was sufficient. In Norton v. Compensation Department, 252 Or 75, 448 P2d 382 (1968), the court was faced with essentially the same issue. In that case claimant’s request for a hearing was mailed within the period provided by ORS 656.319(l)(a),² but was not received by the Board until after that period had expired. The. request was held untimely.

[1028]*1028Claimant has shown no intervening and unavoidable cause for the delay in receipt of the request which might distinguish this case from Norton. The order of dismissal was proper.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

580 P.2d 216, 34 Or. App. 1025, 1978 Ore. App. LEXIS 2634, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bergeron-v-ontario-rendering-co-orctapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack