Dunn v. SAIF Corp.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Dunn v. SAIF Corp.

745 P.2d 431, 88 Or. App. 291

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedNovember 12, 1987

DocketWCB 84-13386; CA A39337

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 745 P.2d 431 (Dunn v. SAIF Corp.) 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

Dunn v. SAIF Corp., 745 P.2d 431, 88 Or. App. 291 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinions

DEITS, J.

Claimant seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board which dismissed her appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The referee issued an order denying the claim on August 12,1985; the Board did not receive a request for review within 30 days. ORS 656.289(3). In February 1986, the Board received an affidavit from claimant’s attorney, stating that a request had been mailed by regular mail to the Board on September 6,1985, within the statutory time limit. We held in Weyerhaeuser Company v. Miller, 88 Or App 286, 745 P2d 429 (1987), that the adoption of OAR 438-05-040(4)(b) requiring proof from the post office that mailing of the request occurred within the time limit imposed by ORS 656.289(3) exceeds the Board’s authority, and that the Board should determine, as a jurisdictional fact, whether the request was timely mailed. The same holding applies on these facts.

Reversed and remanded.

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

DEITS, J.

Claimant seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board which dismissed her appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The referee issued an order denying the claim on August 12,1985; the Board did not receive a request for review within 30 days. ORS 656.289(3). In February 1986, the Board received an affidavit from claimant’s attorney, stating that a request had been mailed by regular mail to the Board on September 6,1985, within the statutory time limit. We held in Weyerhaeuser Company v. Miller, 88 Or App 286, 745 P2d 429 (1987), that the adoption of OAR 438-05-040(4)(b) requiring proof from the post office that mailing of the request occurred within the time limit imposed by ORS 656.289(3) exceeds the Board’s authority, and that the Board should determine, as a jurisdictional fact, whether the request was timely mailed. The same holding applies on these facts.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

745 P.2d 431, 88 Or. App. 291, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunn-v-saif-corp-orctapp-1987.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack