Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

In the Matter of the Compensation of Sharon M. Dunn, Claimant. DUNN, Petitioner, v. SAIF CORPORATION et al, Respondents.

DEITS, J.

Reversed and remanded.

Richardson, P.J., dissenting.

DEITS, J.

Claimant seeks review of an order of the Workers' Compensation Board which dismissed her appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The referee issued an order denying the claim on August 12, 1985; the Board did not receive a request for review within 30 days. ORS 656.289 (3). In February 1986, the Board received an affidavit from claimant's attorney, stating that a request had been mailed by regular mail to the Board on September 6, 1985, within the statutory time limit. We held in Weyerhaeuser Company v. Miller, 88 Or. App. 286, 745 P.2d 429 (1987), that the adoption of OAR 438-05-040 (4)(b) requiring proof from the post office that mailing of the request occurred within the time limit imposed by ORS 656.289 (3) exceeds the Board's authority, and that the Board should determine, as a jurisdictional fact, whether the request was timely mailed. The same holding applies on these facts.

Reversed and remanded.

RICHARDSON, P.J., dissenting.

For the reasons stated in my dissent in Weyerhaeuser Company v. Miller, 88 Or. App. 286, 745 P.2d 429 (1987), I would affirm the dismissal of claimant's appeal.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

DUNN v. SAIF
(Feb 23, 1988)