LeFave v. SAIF Corp.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

LeFave v. SAIF Corp.

125 P.3d 33, 203 Or. App. 108, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 1557

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedDecember 7, 2005

Docket03-00481; A125388

StatusPublished

This text of 125 P.3d 33 (LeFave 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

LeFave v. SAIF Corp., 125 P.3d 33, 203 Or. App. 108, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 1557 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Claimant seeks judicial review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board that reversed an award of attorney fees to claimant. The board reasoned that a letter from SAIF to claimant that neither accepted nor denied his new medical condition did not result in a “denied claim” for purposes of the attorney fee statute, ORS 656.386(l)(b) (1997), amended by Or Laws 2001, ch 865, § 9. While this case was pending on appeal, this court decided Rose v. SAIF, 200 Or App 654, 116 P3d 913 (2005), and held that an “encompassed condition letter” is not a sufficient response to a claimant’s new medical condition claim. SAIF concedes that Rose undermines the board’s reasoning in this case, and that the case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of that opinion. We agree, and we reverse and remand so that the board may reconsider its order in light of our opinion in Rose.

Reversed and remanded for reconsideration.

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

PER CURIAM

Claimant seeks judicial review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board that reversed an award of attorney fees to claimant. The board reasoned that a letter from SAIF to claimant that neither accepted nor denied his new medical condition did not result in a “denied claim” for purposes of the attorney fee statute, ORS 656.386(l)(b) (1997), amended by Or Laws 2001, ch 865, § 9. While this case was pending on appeal, this court decided Rose v. SAIF, 200 Or App 654, 116 P3d 913 (2005), and held that an “encompassed condition letter” is not a sufficient response to a claimant’s new medical condition claim. SAIF concedes that Rose undermines the board’s reasoning in this case, and that the case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of that opinion. We agree, and we reverse and remand so that the board may reconsider its order in light of our opinion in Rose.

Reversed and remanded for reconsideration.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 P.3d 33, 203 Or. App. 108, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 1557, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lefave-v-saif-corp-orctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack