73 VanNatta 76 (2021)
In the Matter of the Compensation of CRAIG M. SELBEE, Claimant
WCB No. 19-06357
Oregon Worker Compensation
January 29, 2021
Ernest
M Jenks, Claimant Attorneys
Reinisch Wilson Weier, Defense Attorneys
Reviewing Panel: Members Woodford and Ousey.
ORDER ON REVIEW
Claimant
requests review of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
Riechers's order that dismissed claimant's hearing
request. On review, the issue is jurisdiction and
(potentially) claim processing, penalties, and attorney fees.
We
adopt and affirm the ALJ's order with the following
supplementation.
In
February 2019, a prior ALJ's order set aside the
self-insured employer's denial of claimant's injury
claim for a right toe condition. (Ex. 1). The employer filed
a request for Board review of the prior ALJ's order.
In
March 2019, the employer issued a "Provisional Notice of
Claim Acceptance," accepting claimant's right toe
condition. (Ex. 2). The notice stated that the employer's
acceptance was "provisional" pending its appeal of
the prior ALJ's order. (Id.)
In July
2019, while its request for Board review was pending, the
employer issued a "Provisional Updated Notice of Claim
Acceptance at Closure" and a "Provisional Notice of
Closure." (Exs. 4, 5). In August 2019, the Appellate
Review Unit (ARU) dismissed claimant's request for
reconsideration of the "Provisional Notice of
Closure," finding that the notice was void because it
included the word "provisional" in the
title.1 (Ex. 6). In its Order of Dismissal,
the ARU clarified that the employer could include language
regarding the provisional nature of an acceptance in the
text of its notices of acceptance and closure to
preserve its rights on appeal. (Id.)
In
October 2019, the employer issued an "Updated Notice of
Claim Acceptance at Closure." (Ex. 7). The notice did
not include the word "provisional" in the title.
(Id.) Rather, the text of the notice stated that the
employer had provisionally accepted claimant's right toe
condition, pending its appeal of the...
