SAIF Corp. v. Holmstrom

Court of Appeals of Oregon

SAIF Corp. v. Holmstrom

831 P.2d 82, 113 Or. App. 242, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 1066

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMay 27, 1992

DocketWCB 87-0155M; CA A68422

StatusPublished

This text of 831 P.2d 82 (SAIF Corp. v. Holmstrom) 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

SAIF Corp. v. Holmstrom, 831 P.2d 82, 113 Or. App. 242, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 1066 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

WARREN, P. J.

SAIF seeks review of a Workers’ Compensation Board order denying authorization for reimbursement from the Reopened Claims Reserve (Reserve). ORS 656.625.¹ We reverse.

In March, 1987, after claimant’s aggravation rights had expired, the Board entered an order pursuant to ORS 656.278, requiring SAIF to reopen his claim and to begin paying time loss benefits. SAIF complied with that order until August 13, 1990, when it closed the claim. Because claimant was not medically stationary at that time, he asked the Board to order SAIF to reopen the claim. The Board granted claimant’s request, ordering SAIF to resume paying time loss benefits as of August 14, 1990. The order also provided:

“Reimbursement from the Reopened Claims Reserve is not authorized as the claim was reopened prior to January 1, 1988.”

SAIF asked the Board to reconsider that portion of its order. On reconsideration, the Board denied SAIF reimbursement from the Reserve for payments that it had made before August 14, 1990, but authorized reimbursement for the payments made after that date.

SAIF contends that the Board lacks the authority to grant or deny reimbursement from the Reserve. In its order, the Board asserts that ORS 656.625(2) gives it that authority. It is mistaken.

The Board’s authority is limited by statute. It has authority to determine matters concerning a claim. ORS 656.704; EBI Companies v. Kemper Group Insurance, 92 Or App 319, 758 P2d 406, rev den 307 Or 145 (1988). A matter concerns a claim if it involves “the worker’s right to receive [245]*245compensation or the amount thereof.” 92 Or App at 322. If a worker has been compensated and is not a participant in the dispute, the worker’s right to receive compensation or the amount thereof is no longer at issue, and so the Board lacks jurisdiction. 92 Or App at 322.

ORS 656.625(1) provides that a prerequisite to any recovery from the Reserve is compliance with a Board order issued pursuant to its own motion authority under ORS 656.278 directing an employer to compensate a claimant. OAR 436-45-010.² When an employer has complied with an own motion order, the worker has been compensated and is not thereafter a participant in the dispute. Consequently, after an employer has satisfied the prerequisites for reimbursement from the Reserve, there is no matter concerning a claim over which the Board can exercise authority.

There is nothing in ORS 656.625(2) that indicates a legislative intent to expand the Board’s jurisdiction. Reading ORS 656.625(1) and (2) together, the phrase “amounts prescribed by the board” referred to in subsection (2) logically relates to the amounts that the Board awards pursuant to its authority under ORS 656.278. So read, ORS 656.625(2) does not grant authority to the Board; it limits the authority of the director. The director can only reimburse insurers for amounts awarded by the Board pursuant to ORS 656.278 after January 1, 1988.

The Board denied reimbursement for some amounts that SAIF paid and authorized reimbursement for other amounts. Because the Board lacked jurisdiction to grant or deny reimbursement, we reverse and remand for the Board to vacate those portions of its order relating to reimbursement from the Reserve.

Reversed and remanded with instructions that the Board vacate the portions of its order relating to reimbursement from the Reopened Claims Reserve.

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

WARREN, P. J.

SAIF seeks review of a Workers’ Compensation Board order denying authorization for reimbursement from the Reopened Claims Reserve (Reserve). ORS 656.625.¹ We reverse.

In March, 1987, after claimant’s aggravation rights had expired, the Board entered an order pursuant to ORS 656.278, requiring SAIF to reopen his claim and to begin paying time loss benefits. SAIF complied with that order until August 13, 1990, when it closed the claim. Because claimant was not medically stationary at that time, he asked the Board to order SAIF to reopen the claim. The Board granted claimant’s request, ordering SAIF to resume paying time loss benefits as of August 14, 1990. The order also provided:

“Reimbursement from the Reopened Claims Reserve is not authorized as the claim was reopened prior to January 1, 1988.”

SAIF asked the Board to reconsider that portion of its order. On reconsideration, the Board denied SAIF reimbursement from the Reserve for payments that it had made before August 14, 1990, but authorized reimbursement for the payments made after that date.

SAIF contends that the Board lacks the authority to grant or deny reimbursement from the Reserve. In its order, the Board asserts that ORS 656.625(2) gives it that authority. It is mistaken.

The Board’s authority is limited by statute. It has authority to determine matters concerning a claim. ORS 656.704; EBI Companies v. Kemper Group Insurance, 92 Or App 319, 758 P2d 406, rev den 307 Or 145 (1988). A matter concerns a claim if it involves “the worker’s right to receive [245]*245compensation or the amount thereof.” 92 Or App at 322. If a worker has been compensated and is not a participant in the dispute, the worker’s right to receive compensation or the amount thereof is no longer at issue, and so the Board lacks jurisdiction. 92 Or App at 322.

ORS 656.625(1) provides that a prerequisite to any recovery from the Reserve is compliance with a Board order issued pursuant to its own motion authority under ORS 656.278 directing an employer to compensate a claimant. OAR 436-45-010.² When an employer has complied with an own motion order, the worker has been compensated and is not thereafter a participant in the dispute. Consequently, after an employer has satisfied the prerequisites for reimbursement from the Reserve, there is no matter concerning a claim over which the Board can exercise authority.

There is nothing in ORS 656.625(2) that indicates a legislative intent to expand the Board’s jurisdiction. Reading ORS 656.625(1) and (2) together, the phrase “amounts prescribed by the board” referred to in subsection (2) logically relates to the amounts that the Board awards pursuant to its authority under ORS 656.278. So read, ORS 656.625(2) does not grant authority to the Board; it limits the authority of the director. The director can only reimburse insurers for amounts awarded by the Board pursuant to ORS 656.278 after January 1, 1988.

The Board denied reimbursement for some amounts that SAIF paid and authorized reimbursement for other amounts. Because the Board lacked jurisdiction to grant or deny reimbursement, we reverse and remand for the Board to vacate those portions of its order relating to reimbursement from the Reserve.

Reversed and remanded with instructions that the Board vacate the portions of its order relating to reimbursement from the Reopened Claims Reserve.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

831 P.2d 82, 113 Or. App. 242, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 1066, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saif-corp-v-holmstrom-orctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack