DCBS v. Muliro

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Insurance Law
  • Date Filed: 12-10-2014
  • Case #: A152594
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Sercombe, P.J., and Hadlock, J., & Tookey, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

An injured worker seeking supplemental disability has the burden of satisfying the requirements of ORS 656.210(2)(b); when the worker does not provide the necessary information, the entity responsible for processing the claim is not obligated to independently seek that information out.

The Department of Consumer and Business Services (DCBS) seeks judicial review of the Workers' Compensation Board affirming payment of supplemental disability to the claimant. The issue in this case is whether an employer's knowledge that a worker has secondary employment is sufficient to establish the notification required by ORS 656.210(2)(b)(A). DCBS challenges the board's conclusion that, although claimant failed to timely notify her employer's insurer that she had multiple employers, as required by ORS 656.210(2)(b)(A), the insurer had "imputed notice" of claimant's secondary employment, because claimant's employer was aware that she had other employers. DCBS notes, under the the statute, an insurer must "receive," within 30 days, "notice" that a worker had secondary employment at the time of injury. Claimant argues that, because Adams & Gray was aware that she had secondary employment at the time of the injury, Liberty also had knowledge of that employment. Claimant argues that Liberty had "actual notice" of claimant's secondary employment because it had the means of informing itself, and ought to have done so. Court concludes that the board erred when it applied the principle of imputed notice to the circumstances in this case, contrary to the requirements of ORS 656.210(2)(b)(A). Reverse and remanded the board's order.

Advanced Search