Giusti Wine Co. v. Adams

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Giusti Wine Co. v. Adams

764 P.2d 620, 94 Or. App. 175

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedNovember 23, 1988

Docket86-08747, 85-15626, 86-01876, 86-08746; CA A46450

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 764 P.2d 620 (Giusti Wine Co. v. Adams) 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

Giusti Wine Co. v. Adams, 764 P.2d 620, 94 Or. App. 175 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

In this workers’ compensation case, EBI seeks review of a decision of the Board determining that claimant’s request for hearing was not untimely.

On August 19,1985, EBI issued a denial of responsibility for claimant’s aggravation claim. It sent the letter by certified mail, return receipt requested, to claimant’s correct address. Claimant did not claim the letter, despite notices left by the post office on August 21 and 27. On October 29, 1985, employer sent a copy of the notice of denial through the regular mail. Claimant received it on November 4,1985. He filed a request for hearing on December 18,1985.

The Board held that the request for hearing was not untimely, because the time for filing the request did not begin to run until claimant actually received notice of the denial. As we held in Cowart v. SAIF, 86 Or App 748, 740 P2d 249 (1987), the date of mailing, not receipt, starts the running of the 60 days under ORS 656.319. Because the notice was mailed August 19, 1985, claimant’s request for hearing was not timely, and we reverse and remand for a determination of whether claimant had good cause for filing a late request for hearing.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM

In this workers’ compensation case, EBI seeks review of a decision of the Board determining that claimant’s request for hearing was not untimely.

On August 19,1985, EBI issued a denial of responsibility for claimant’s aggravation claim. It sent the letter by certified mail, return receipt requested, to claimant’s correct address. Claimant did not claim the letter, despite notices left by the post office on August 21 and 27. On October 29, 1985, employer sent a copy of the notice of denial through the regular mail. Claimant received it on November 4,1985. He filed a request for hearing on December 18,1985.

The Board held that the request for hearing was not untimely, because the time for filing the request did not begin to run until claimant actually received notice of the denial. As we held in Cowart v. SAIF, 86 Or App 748, 740 P2d 249 (1987), the date of mailing, not receipt, starts the running of the 60 days under ORS 656.319. Because the notice was mailed August 19, 1985, claimant’s request for hearing was not timely, and we reverse and remand for a determination of whether claimant had good cause for filing a late request for hearing.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

764 P.2d 620, 94 Or. App. 175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/giusti-wine-co-v-adams-orctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack