Case ID: or-app_72/html/0422-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Argued and submitted July 18, 1984,
    reversed and remanded with instructions February 27,
    reconsideration denied April 19,
    petition for review denied June 4, 1985 (299 Or 251)
    In the Matter of the Compensation of Darrel A. Chastain, Claimant. CHASTAIN, Petitioner, v. STATE ACCIDENT INSURANCE FUND CORPORATION et al, Respondents.
    
    (81-03963 & 81-03962; CA A30590)
    695 P2d 978
    Mark Andrew Lange, Salem, argued the cause for petitioner. On the brief was Rolf Olson, Salem.
    Darrell E. Bewley, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent State Accident Insurance Fund Corporation. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and James E. Mountain, Jr., Solicitor General, Salem.
    Allan M. Muir, Portland, argued the cause for respondent Fremont Indemnity. With him on the brief were Roger A. Luedtke and Schwabe, Williamson, Wyatt, Moore & Roberts, Portland.
    Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Warden and Newman, Judges.
    PER CURIAM
   PER CURIAM

Claimant seeks review of a Workers’ Compensation Board order denying him compensation for his low back condition as either an aggravation or a new injury. We reverse and remand for reinstatement of respondent SAIF Corporation’s acceptance of the claim.

The dispositive issue is whether SAIF is estopped from denying acceptance of the claim under Bauman v. SAIF, 295 Or 788, 670 P2d 1027 (1983). We hold that it is. SAIF concedes that, under Bauman, it is estopped from denying the compensability of the claim. SAIF argues, however, that Bauman does not preclude its “back-up” denial of responsibility. That issue was decided against SAIF’s position in Jeld-Wen, Inc. v. McGehee, 72 Or App 12, 695 P2d 92 (1985), where we interpreted Bauman as applying to “back-up” denials of responsibility. SAIF’s back-up denial of responsibility was issued after the 60-day time limit prescribed in ORS 656.262(6). That denial is barred by Bauman. Jeld-Wen, Inc. v. McGehee, supra.

Reversed and remanded for reinstatement of respondent SAIF Corporation’s acceptance of the claim. 
      
      
        Bauman applies retroactively to back-up denials issued before Bauman was decided. U. S. National Bank v. Wagoner, 71 Or App 266, 692 P2d 149 (1984).