In re Compensation of Ray, 032921 ORWC, 18-05512

Case DateMarch 29, 2021
CourtOregon
73 Van Natta 220 (2021)
In the Matter of the Compensation of ROBERT A. RAY, Claimant
WCB Nos. 18-05512
Oregon Worker Compensation
March 29, 2021
          Unrepresented Claimant           SAIF Legal Salem, Defense Attorneys           Reviewing Panel: Members Curey and Ousey.           ORDER ON REVIEW          Claimant, pro se,1 requests review of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jacobson’s order that dismissed his requests for hearing. On review, the issue is the propriety of the dismissal order.          We adopt and affirm the ALJ’s order, with the following supplementation.          On July 31, 2018, and November 2, 2018, claimant, with the assistance of counsel, filed hearing requests.          On July 16, 2020, claimant’s former attorney withdrew the hearing requests on behalf of claimant.          On July 30, 2020, the ALJ issued an Order of Dismissal.          Claimant, pro se, requested Board review of the July 30, 2020, Order of Dismissal.2 On September 11, 2020, claimant’s former attorney confirmed that he no longer represented claimant.          [73 Van Natta 221] Based on the following reasoning, we affirm the ALJ’s dismissal order.          When a claimant signs a retainer agreement employing an attorney and giving that attorney authority to act for the claimant, a dismissal order issued in response to that attorney’s withdrawal of the hearing request is appropriate. Misty A. Golden, [68 Van Natta 227], 228 (2016); Stephen L. Dargis, 53 Van Natta ; Robert S. Ceballos, 49 Van Natta ; Gilberto Garcia-Ortega, 48 Van Natta . Claimant has the burden of proving that the dismissal order was not appropriate. Donald J. Murray, [[50 Van Natta 1132]], 1133 (1998) (citing Harris v. SAIF, 292 Or. 683, 690 (1982), for the proposition that the burden of proof is upon the proponent of a fact or position, the party who would be unsuccessful if no evidence were introduced on either side).          In previous cases, we have held that the dispositive issue is not a claimant’s state of mind at the time a hearing request is...

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