Chisholm v. State Accident Insurance Fund

Oregon Supreme Court

Chisholm v. State Accident Insurance Fund

559 P.2d 511, 277 Or. 51, 1977 Ore. LEXIS 1050

CourtOregon Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 27, 1977

DocketNo. 94402, CA 6217, SC 24766

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 559 P.2d 511 (Chisholm v. State Accident Insurance Fund) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chisholm v. State Accident Insurance Fund, 559 P.2d 511, 277 Or. 51, 1977 Ore. LEXIS 1050 (Or. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

An order determining a Workmen’s Compensation claim was mailed by the referee to the parties on August 27, 1975. On September 3, 1975, an amended order was mailed which made no change in the disposition of the case and was identical with the original order except that it corrected only the recitation of the date on which the hearing was held before the referee. ORS 656.289(3)¹ provides that an order is final unless review is requested within thirty days of the time the referee’s order determining the case is mailed to the parties. Claimant did not request review within thirty days of the day the original order determining the case was mailed but did request review within thirty days of the date that the correction was mailed. The issue is whether the request for review was timely. A majority of the sitting judges of the Court of Appeals held that the request for review was timely, 26 Or App 627, 553 P2d 1083 (1976). Chief Judge Schwab dissented.

The recitation of the date of the hearing in the original order was immaterial and unnecessary and could in no way affect the right of the parties. The correction concerned an irrelevancy. The request for review was not timely because it was not made within thirty days of the order determining the rights of the parties.

We reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and adopt the dissent of the Chief Judge.

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

PER CURIAM.

An order determining a Workmen’s Compensation claim was mailed by the referee to the parties on August 27, 1975. On September 3, 1975, an amended order was mailed which made no change in the disposition of the case and was identical with the original order except that it corrected only the recitation of the date on which the hearing was held before the referee. ORS 656.289(3)¹ provides that an order is final unless review is requested within thirty days of the time the referee’s order determining the case is mailed to the parties. Claimant did not request review within thirty days of the day the original order determining the case was mailed but did request review within thirty days of the date that the correction was mailed. The issue is whether the request for review was timely. A majority of the sitting judges of the Court of Appeals held that the request for review was timely, 26 Or App 627, 553 P2d 1083 (1976). Chief Judge Schwab dissented.

The recitation of the date of the hearing in the original order was immaterial and unnecessary and could in no way affect the right of the parties. The correction concerned an irrelevancy. The request for review was not timely because it was not made within thirty days of the order determining the rights of the parties.

We reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and adopt the dissent of the Chief Judge.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

559 P.2d 511, 277 Or. 51, 1977 Ore. LEXIS 1050, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chisholm-v-state-accident-insurance-fund-or-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack