Satterfield v. STATE COMPENSATION DEPARTMENT

465 P.2d 239, 1 Or. App. 524, 1970 Ore. App. LEXIS 715

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: February 5, 1970
• Status: Published

Opinions

FOLEY, J.

This is an appeal from a circuit court judgment denying plaintiff’s claim for compensation for an injury allegedly suffered by claimant in an accident on January 3,1967, while working in employment covered by the Workmen’s Conrpensation Law. The hearing officer allowed the claim. The Workmen’s Compensation Board reversed the hearing officer, the circuit court affirmed the board and the claimant appeals.

The claimant convinced the hearing officer that lie was injured in an unwitnessed industrial accident on January 3,1967, while employed by Burns Bros. ReCap Service in Portland. His claim was filed on February 24, 1967, 22 days later than the 30 days prescribed by statute. Since the claim was based principally on claimant’s own testimony, his truthfulness was attacked at the hearing by attempting to impeach him with other witnesses and evidence of his criminal record. The hearing officer also held a supplemental hearing a week later in which he heard further testimony relative to claimant’s truthfulness.

① After this hearing the hearing officer concluded that claimant was truthful and that the claimed accidental injury in the course of employment on January 3, 1967, did in fact occur.

The hearing officer also found that the employer was not prejudiced by the 22-day delay in receiving notice of accidental injury and he further stated: “* * # an allegation of prejudice by the employer requires the employer to come forward with proof of that allegation * * Both the Workmen’s Compensation Board and the circuit court disagreed with the hearing officer’s determination of compensable injury,② and also his placing upon the employer the burden of showing prejudice by reason of the late notice.

Whether claimant proved a compensable injury is a fact question turning largely on the truthfulness of the claimant. There was no • recitation of any circumstance rendering inherently improbable the happening of the accident in the manner he described. The hearing officer is the one who heard and saw the witnesses and could note tlieir demeanor and candor or lack thereof. A cold observation of the record falls far short of personal observation.

Romero v. Compensation Department, 250 Or 368, 440 P2d 866 (1968), holds that considerable weight must be given to the conclusions of the hearing officer. In that case, in connection with a factual determination of disability, our Supreme Court said:

“* * * In this subjective area the opportunity to observe the claimant and the other witnesses is of prime importance. The Hearing Officer is in a position to make this observation and we are not * * 250 Or at 372.

In Moore v. U. S. Plywood Corp., 1 Or App 343, 462 P2d 453 (1969), where credibility of the claimant was the crucial issue, this court in denying compensation said:

“* * * [F] or the same reasons we give weight to the findings of the trial judge on the issue of credibility in cases where he sees and hears the witnesses, we give weight to the findings of the hearing officer on the matter of credibility of witnesses in appeals under the Workmen’s Compensation Law.”

We hold that the hearing officer’s finding of a compensable injury should be sustained.

The other question presented in this appeal is upon whom should the burden be placed to show that the employer was or was not prejudiced by the late filing of notice of compensable injury. This issue has not been decided previously by this court, nor have we had cited to us or been able to discover any cases on this point decided by the Oregon Supreme Court.

The Oregon statutes give no guidance on this issue, and an examination of the law in other states has not been helpful. OES 656.265(4) is the applicable statute. It states, in part:

“Failure to give notice as required by this section bars a claim under OES 656.001 to 656.794 unless:

“(a) * * * the department or direct responsibility employer has not been prejudiced by failure to receive the notice * *

This statute then, says that a late filing is excused when the employer has not been prejudiced by failure to receive notice within the 30-day filing period. Prejudice to the employer can result from the passage of time alone. Also witnesses are mobile and their memories dim with the passage of time. Frequently prompt medical attention might reduce the consequence of the injury. From the foregoing it can be seen that a persuasive argument can be made that the burden should be on the employe to prove lack of prejudice. It is his obligation to establish his claim, Coday v. Willamette Tug & Barge, 250 Or 39, 440 P2d 224 (1968), and he is the one who failed to timely file his claim.

On the other hand, employers are generally better educated, financially in a better position, and more resourceful than their employes. They usually are better able to interview their own employes and come forward with evidence to establish prejudice. To require the employe to carry the burden on the issue of whether or not the employer is prejudiced by the late filing requires the employe to' prove a negative. In addition it is a basic guideline in compensation cases that workmen’s compensation statutes are to be construed liberally in favor of compensation. Jordan v. Western Electric Co., 1 Or App 441, 463 P2d 598 (1970); Burkholder v. S.I.A.C., 242 Or 276, 409 P2d (1965); Tice v. State Ind. Acc. Comm., 183 Or 593, 195 P2d 188 (1948). We believe the arguments placing the burden on the employer are, on balance, more persuasive. In this ease defendant offered no evidence whatever in support of a claim that it had been prejudiced and we hold that plaintiff’s failure to file notice within 30 days was excused pursuant to OPvS 656.265 (4).

The judgment of the circuit court is reversed and the case is remanded for entry of appropriate orders resulting in reinstatement of the decision of the hearing officer.

Attorney fees of $600 are allowed claimant in this court.

Reversed and remanded.

This testimony did not relate to whether an accident occurred.

“A ‘compensable injury’ is an accidental injury * * * arising out of and in the course of employment requiring medical services or resulting in disability * * ORS 656.002 (6).