In re Moye, 092519 ORWC, 18-06004

Case DateSeptember 25, 2019
CourtOregon
71 Van Natta 1080 (2019)
In the Matter of the Compensation of BRANDON J. MOYE, SR., Claimant
WCB No. 18-06004
Oregon Worker Compensation
September 25, 2019
          Unrepresented Claimant           Sather Byerly & Holloway, Defense Attorneys           Reviewing Panel: Members Woodford and Ousey.           ORDER ON REVIEW          Claimant, pro se, requests review of ALJ Jacobson’s order that: (1) declined to set aside a Claim Disposition Agreement (CDA) and a Disputed Claim Settlement (DCS); (2) declined to award temporary or permanent disability benefits, as well as vocational assistance; (3) concluded that the Hearings Division lacked jurisdiction to address claimant’s entitlement to Own Motion benefits; (4) declined to award medical service benefits; (5) upheld the self-insured employer’s denial of a new/omitted medical condition claim for several enumerated conditions; and (6) declined to award benefits for racial discrimination, hate crimes, and pain and suffering. On review, the issues are jurisdiction, claim processing, medical services, and validity of the CDA and DCS.[1]          We adopt and affirm the ALJ’s order with the following supplementation.          Claimant first contends that the CDA and DCS, approved by the Board on November 29, 2011, do not preclude his entitlement to additional temporary disability benefits, permanent disability benefits, and vocational assistance related to his 2010 work injury because he was unaware of the existence of those agreements. We interpret claimant’s argument as an attempt to have those agreements rescinded. Based on the following reasoning, we deny such a request.          A proposed CDA shall be approved unless the Board finds that the proposed disposition is unreasonable as a matter of law. ORS 656.236(1)(a)(A). Once approved, a CDA is not subject to further review, unless a motion to reconsider the CDA is filed within 10 days of the mailing of the order. ORS 656.236(2); OAR 438-009-0035(1), (2).          [71 Van Natta 1081] Accordingly, the statutory/administrative provisions provide that an allegation that the CDA was invalid must be...

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