EBI Insurance v. CNA Insurance

Court of Appeals of Oregon

EBI Insurance v. CNA Insurance

769 P.2d 789, 95 Or. App. 448, 1989 Ore. App. LEXIS 246

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMarch 8, 1989

DocketWCB 86-12728 & WCB 86-03222 CA A47014

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 769 P.2d 789 (EBI Insurance v. CNA Insurance) 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

EBI Insurance v. CNA Insurance, 769 P.2d 789, 95 Or. App. 448, 1989 Ore. App. LEXIS 246 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

*450 RICHARDSON, P. J.

Don Rasmussen BMW (Rasmussen) seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board that affirmed the referee’s order overturning a denial of claimant’s aggravation claim. It contends that Tandy Corporation (Tandy), a subsequent employer, is responsible because it accepted claimant’s new injury claim, and its later denial is therefore barred by Bauman v. SAIF, 295 Or 788, 670 P2d 1027 (1983). We affirm.

Claimant sustained a compensable back injury in 1983 while employed by Rasmussen. During his subsequent employment with Tandy, he began experiencing back pain and his treating chiropractor notified Rasmussen that he had suffered an aggravation. Rasmussen denied the claim, and claimant then filed a new injury claim with Tandy, which it denied by letter. Subsequently, Tandy filed two reports with the Workers’ Compensation Division on a Form 1502. The first indicated that the claim against Tandy was denied, but the second stated “claim originally denied, now accepted.” Two days later, Tandy filed a third Form 1502 that explained that the notation on the second form was a clerical error and that the claim was in a denied status.

The referee found that claimant’s current condition is an aggravation of the 1983 injury sustained while working at Rasmussen and ordered Rasmussen to accept the claim. The Board affirmed that part of the decision.

Rasmussen does not challenge the finding that claimant’s condition is an aggravation of the original injury, but contends that Tandy is responsible, because it accepted the claim when it noted its acceptance on the Form 1502.

A witness explained that the Form 1502 is a report to the Workers’ Compensation Division of the current status of a claim. It is not a notification to a claimant that the claim is accepted or denied. The form was not intended to be a notification to claimant of anything. In Bauman v. SAIF, supra, the court said:

“If, as in this case, the insurer officially notifies the claimant that the claim has been accepted, the insurer may not, after the 60 days have elapsed, deny the compensability of the claim * * * ” 295 Or at 794.

*451 Official notice of acceptance or denial is described by ORS 656.262(6) and must include certain information and advice to the claimant. We conclude that the information on the Form 1502 was not an official notice of acceptance.

Affirmed.

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

*450 RICHARDSON, P. J.

Don Rasmussen BMW (Rasmussen) seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board that affirmed the referee’s order overturning a denial of claimant’s aggravation claim. It contends that Tandy Corporation (Tandy), a subsequent employer, is responsible because it accepted claimant’s new injury claim, and its later denial is therefore barred by Bauman v. SAIF, 295 Or 788, 670 P2d 1027 (1983). We affirm.

Claimant sustained a compensable back injury in 1983 while employed by Rasmussen. During his subsequent employment with Tandy, he began experiencing back pain and his treating chiropractor notified Rasmussen that he had suffered an aggravation. Rasmussen denied the claim, and claimant then filed a new injury claim with Tandy, which it denied by letter. Subsequently, Tandy filed two reports with the Workers’ Compensation Division on a Form 1502. The first indicated that the claim against Tandy was denied, but the second stated “claim originally denied, now accepted.” Two days later, Tandy filed a third Form 1502 that explained that the notation on the second form was a clerical error and that the claim was in a denied status.

The referee found that claimant’s current condition is an aggravation of the 1983 injury sustained while working at Rasmussen and ordered Rasmussen to accept the claim. The Board affirmed that part of the decision.

Rasmussen does not challenge the finding that claimant’s condition is an aggravation of the original injury, but contends that Tandy is responsible, because it accepted the claim when it noted its acceptance on the Form 1502.

A witness explained that the Form 1502 is a report to the Workers’ Compensation Division of the current status of a claim. It is not a notification to a claimant that the claim is accepted or denied. The form was not intended to be a notification to claimant of anything. In Bauman v. SAIF, supra, the court said:

“If, as in this case, the insurer officially notifies the claimant that the claim has been accepted, the insurer may not, after the 60 days have elapsed, deny the compensability of the claim * * * ” 295 Or at 794.

*451 Official notice of acceptance or denial is described by ORS 656.262(6) and must include certain information and advice to the claimant. We conclude that the information on the Form 1502 was not an official notice of acceptance.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

769 P.2d 789, 95 Or. App. 448, 1989 Ore. App. LEXIS 246, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ebi-insurance-v-cna-insurance-orctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack