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an attempt to have those agreements rescinded.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...