In re Compensation of Havlik, 042219 ORWC, 18-02073

Docket Nº:WCB 18-02073
Case Date:April 22, 2019
71 Van Natta 427 (2019)
In the Matter of the Compensation of DARON J. HAVLIK, Claimant
WCB No. 18-02073
Oregon Worker Compensation
April 22, 2019
          Schoenfeld & Schoenfeld, Claimant Attorneys           SAIF Legal Salem, Defense Attorneys           Reviewing Panel: Members Lanning and Curey.           ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION          On March 28, 2019, we adopted and affirmed an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ’s) order that: (1) found that claimant had not established “good cause” for his untimely filed hearing request regarding the SAIF Corporation’s denial of his injury claim for a hernia condition; and (2) dismissed his hearing request. Contending that we did not adequately address the arguments and case precedent set forth in his appellate briefs, claimant seeks reconsideration of our decision.          After considering claimant’s arguments on reconsideration, we continue to adhere to our prior order. By adopting and affirming the ALJ’s order, we have found that the facts and conclusions in that order express our opinion of the case. E.g. Stephanie A. Straub, 62 Van Natta 3005 (2010) (by adopting an ALJ’s order, the Board order indicated that it found the ALJ’s order sufficient for appellate review and the facts and conclusions in that order expressed the Board’s opinion); Jorge Pedraza, 49 Van Natta 1019 (1997) (same). Nonetheless, in response to claimant’s motion, we provide the following supplementation.          As referenced in the ALJ’s order, in Shawn L. Rhoades, 50 Van Natta 2258, 2261 (1996), we explained that '"good cause’ under ORS 656.319(1)(b) is not a matter of ‘discretion’ but of agency judgment in the sense stated in McPherson v. Employment Division, 285 Or. 541 [] (1979).” Cf. Brown v. EBI Cos, 289 Or. 455, 460 n 3 (1980) ('"good cause’ under ORS 656.319(1)(b) is not a matter of ‘discretion’ but of agency judgment[.]”)          Moreover, in Rhoades, we reasoned that, “the text of ORS 656.319(1)(b) provides no basis for liberally construing the ‘good cause’ standard.” 50 Van Natta at 2261. Thus, consistent with the rationale expressed in Brown, McPherson, and Rhoades...

To continue reading