71 Van Natta 413 (2019)
In the Matter of the Compensation of JAMES C. PEERY, Claimant
WCB No. 17-02945
Oregon Worker Compensation
April 19, 2019
Clark, Young, & Schoepper, Defense Attorneys
Reviewing Panel: Members Woodford and Lanning.
ORDER ON REVIEW
pro se, requests review of Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) Reichers’s order that: (1) found that claimant
had not shown “extraordinary circumstances” for
his failure to appear at the scheduled hearing; and (2)
dismissed his hearing requests. On review, the issue is the
propriety of the ALJ’s dismissal order.
adopt and affirm the ALJ’s order with the following
did not appear at the scheduled August 20, 2018, hearing, and
the ALJ dismissed his hearing requests. Thereafter, claimant
sought reinstatement of his hearing requests, stating that he
had erroneously believed the hearing was scheduled for August
response to claimant’s contention, the ALJ abated the
dismissal order. After considering claimant’s position,
the ALJ issued an Order on Reconsideration, reinstating the
dismissal order. The ALJ reasoned that claimant’s
scheduling error regarding the date of the hearing did not
constitute “extraordinary circumstances” to
justify postponement or continuance of the hearing.
review, claimant renews his contention that he did not attend
the scheduled hearing because he was mistaken about the date
of that hearing. Based on the following reasoning, we
affirm the ALJ’s dismissal order.
Natta 414] Under OAR 438-006-0071(2), when a party requesting
a hearing fails to appear, the ALJ shall dismiss the request
for hearing as abandoned unless “extraordinary
circumstances” justify postponement or continuance of
the hearing. A postponement requires a finding of
“extraordinary circumstances” beyond the control
of the requesting party. OAR 438-006-0081. We review the
ALJ’s determination that the record did not establish
“extraordinary circumstances” to...