55 Van Natta 4292 (2003). LYLE R. KING, Claimant.

CourtOregon
Oregon Workers Compensation 2003. 55 Van Natta 4292 (2003). LYLE R. KING, Claimant 4292In the Matter of the Compensation of LYLE R. KING, ClaimantWCB Case No. 01-09943ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION (REMANDING)Hooton Wold and Okrent LLP, Claimant Attorneys Sheridan Levine LLP, Defense AttorneysReviewing Panel: Members Biehl and Lowell.On November 28, 2003, we abated our November 5, 2003 order that vacated an Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ's) order that dismissed claimant's hearing request regarding the self-insured employer's denial of his occupational disease claim for a current pulmonary condition and remanded the case to the ALJ for further proceedings. Contending that we erred in determining that the doctrine of claim preclusion was not applicable in analyzing this claim, the employer seeks reconsideration of our decision. Having received claimant's response, we proceed with our reconsideration. We provide a brief summary of the facts. Claimant worked for the employer from 1970 until November 2002, performing various duties, including removal of insulation and asbestos abatement. On February 1, 1989, claimant signed an "801" form, which referred to his lungs and described the problem as "exposure to hazardous chemicals, asbestos, silica." (Ex. 11). The "827" form signed by claimant also referred to "exposure to hazardous chemicals, asbestos, silica." (Ex. 4). The employer denied the claim on February 16, 1989. (Ex. 14). The employer referred to the claim for "asbestos exposure" and explained that there was "no definitive diagnosis of an asbestos or chemical exposure disease process." (Id.) Claimant requested a hearing concerning the denial. On September 5, 1991, an ALJ signed an order of dismissal that said claimant's request for hearing had been withdrawn. (Ex. 55). The dismissal order was not appealed. After 1991, claimant continued to experience lung symptoms that required treatment. In April 2001, claimant signed an "801" form that referred to "dust disease of the lungs" and he indicated that he had worked with hazardous chemicals, wood dust, moldy fungus and moldy insulation. (Ex. 77). The employer denied the claim on October 30, 2001 on the grounds that claimant's "current pulmonary condition" was not related to his employment and that he had a preexisting pulmonary condition that was the major contributing cause of his...

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