54 Van Natta 205 (2002). VASILIY TKACHEV, Claimant.

Case DateApril 24, 2002
CourtOregon
Oregon Worker Compensation 2002. 54 Van Natta 205 (2002). VASILIY TKACHEV, Claimant 205In the Matter of the Compensation of VASILIY TKACHEV, ClaimantWCB Case No. 01-06757SECOND ORDER OF DISMISSALRaymond Bradley, Claimant AttorneysJohnson Nyburg and Andersen, Defense AttorneysReviewing Panel: Members Biehl and Bock.Claimant requests reconsideration of our February 15, 2002 order that dismissed his request for review of an Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ's) order. Based on the following reasoning, we adhere to our previous conclusion that the request for Board review was untimely filed. An ALJ's order is final, unless, within 30 days after the date on which a copy of the order is mailed to the parties, one of the parties requests Board review under ORS 656.295. See ORS 656.289(3). Requests for Board review shall be mailed to the Board and copies of the request shall be mailed to all parties to the proceeding before the ALJ. ORS 656.295(2). "Filing" of a request for review is the physical delivery of a thing to any permanently staffed office of the Board, or the date of mailing. OAR 438-005- 0046(1)(a). Failure to timely file the request for review requires dismissal of the request for review. Mosley v. Sacred Heart Hospital, 113 Or App 234, 237 (1992). Here, the 30th day after the ALJ's December 26, 2001 order was January 25, 2002. Claimant's attorney's letter, however, was not received by the Board until February 8, 2002, more than 30 days from the ALJ's December 26, 2001 order. On reconsideration, claimant's attorney again contends that he did not receive a copy of the ALJ's order.1 However, ORS 656.289(2) requires the ALJ's order to be sent to all "parties in interest." "Party" means a claimant for compensation, the employer of the injured worker at the time of the injury and the insurer, if any, of such employer. ORS 656.005(21). Attorneys are not considered "parties." See Haskell Corporation v. Filippi, 152 Or App 117, 123 (1998). Thus, as we stated in our initial Order of Dismissal, an attorney's failure to receive a copy of the order does not necessitate republication. SeeDebbie R. Coldiron, 51 Van Natta 991 (1999); Lee R. Jones, 48 Van Natta 1286, 1287 (1996). 1 Claimant's attorney has been provided with copies of both the ALJ's order and our initial Order of Dismissal. 54 Van Natta 205 (2002)206Claimant also asks for an...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT