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...