SAIF Corporation v. Wheeler

811 P.2d 1382, 107 Or. App. 254, 1991 Ore. App. LEXIS 816
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedMay 22, 1991
DocketWCB No. 87-0276M; CA A64163
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 811 P.2d 1382 (SAIF Corporation v. Wheeler) 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 Corporation v. Wheeler, 811 P.2d 1382, 107 Or. App. 254, 1991 Ore. App. LEXIS 816 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).

Opinion

JOSEPH, C. J.

SAIF Corporation (SAIF) seeks review of the Workers’ Compensation Board’s Own Motion Order on Reconsideration and a remand for further proceedings.

SAIF requested the Board to consider terminating claimant’s permanent total disability award for injuries predating 1966. The Board held that it lacked jurisdiction to reevaluate the award under ORS 656.278.1 It reasoned that ORS 656.278(l)(b) expressly permits it only to authorize payment of medical benefits for pre-1966 injuries, in addition to temporary disability compensation provided for in subsection (l)(a). The Board found no express language or legislative intent apparent in the statute to authorize it to decrease or terminate permanent disability awards.

SAIF would interpret ORS 656.278(1) (b) differently. It argues that, on its face, the statute authorizes the Board to terminate a former award in all cases where “[t]he date of injury is earlier than January 1,1966.” The second sentence of the subsection, SAIF contends, does not limit the meaning of the first sentence; it merely authorizes the Board to grant medical benefits and temporary disability awards under the limited conditions specified in subsection (l)(a). SAIF points [257]*257to the language in ORS 656.278(3)2 that allows a claimant “to appeal” an own motion order that reduces or terminates a former award and argues that subsection (3) would be meaningless under the Board’s interpretation of subsection (1). SAIF also contends that nothing in the legislative history of the amendment evidences any intent to eliminate the Board’s authority to reduce permanent disability awards.

We have interpreted ORS 656.278(1), as it now reads, to abolish the Board’s authority to award permanent disability benefits on its own motion. See State ex rel Borisoff v. Workers’ Comp. Board, 104 Or App 603, 606, 802 P2d 98 (1990); Independent Paper Stock v. Wincer, 100 Or App 625, 628, 788 P2d 466, rev den 310 Or 195 (1990). The question in this case is whether, under ORS 656.278(1), the Board may on its own motion reduce or terminate a permanent disability award for injuries pre-dating 1966.3

ORS 656.278(1) unambiguously provides that the Board can “from time to time modify, change or terminate former * * * awards” in cases where the injury occurred “earlier than January 1, 1966.” (Emphasis supplied.) ORS 656.278(3) evidences the legislature’s intent to continue the Board’s authority to reduce awards but only as limited by subsection (1). Our interpretation is consistent with the policy that claimants should be encouraged to attempt to reduce their disabilities and become self-sufficient to the greatest extent practicable. See ORS 656.012(2)(c); ORS 656.206(5); ORS 656.325(3).

Reversed and remanded for reconsideration.

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

Related

SAIF Corp. v. Wheeler
823 P.2d 434 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
811 P.2d 1382, 107 Or. App. 254, 1991 Ore. App. LEXIS 816, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saif-corporation-v-wheeler-orctapp-1991.