Case Name: In the Matter of the Compensation of Buzz Vsetecka, Claimant. Buzz VSETECKA, Petitioner, v. SAFEWAY STORES, INC., Respondent
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2002-08-14
Citations: 183 Or. App. 239
Docket Number: 00-02916; A113353
Parties: In the Matter of the Compensation of Buzz Vsetecka, Claimant. Buzz VSETECKA, Petitioner, v. SAFEWAY STORES, INC., Respondent.
Judges: Before Landau, Presiding Judge, and Brewer and Schuman, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 183
Pages: 239–244

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted January 23,
affirmed August 14, 2002
In the Matter of the Compensation of Buzz Vsetecka, Claimant. Buzz VSETECKA, Petitioner, v. SAFEWAY STORES, INC., Respondent.
00-02916; A113353
51 P3d 688
Edward J. Harri argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was J. Michael Casey.
Kenneth L. Kleinsmith argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Meyers, Radler, Bohy, Replogle & Miller.
Before Landau, Presiding Judge, and Brewer and Schuman, Judges.
LANDAU, P. J.
Schuman, J., dissenting.

Opinion:
LANDAU, P. J.
Claimant seeks judicial review of an order of the Workers' Compensation Board (board) upholding employer's denial of his claim on the ground that he failed to notify employer of his on-the-job injury within the time required by the statute. We affirm.
The relevant facts are undisputed. Claimant worked for employer as a warehouseman. On April 30, 1998, a 50-pound box of apples fell from an overhead bin. Claimant deflected the box with his raised right arm. He immediately experienced soreness and stiffness in his right wrist.
Following employer's policy for reporting on-the-job injuries, claimant made an entry in a first-aid log. The log contained preprinted forms that required an injured worker to provide his or her name, the date, and a description of the injury. Claimant made the following entry: "Buzz V., 4/30/98, pain in right wrist." Despite the symptoms, claimant did not leave work and did not seek medical treatment. On two other days the following month, claimant made similar entries complaining of "Right Wrist Pain" and "Right Wrist Pain Again."
Eighteen months later, claimant sought medical treatment for the pain in his wrist. On January 17, 2000, he filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits.
Employer denied the claim, asserting that claimant had not provided written notice of when, where, and how the injury occurred within 90 days, as required by ORS 656.265(2). Claimant maintained that his written notation in the first-aid log sufficed. The board concluded that the notation in the log supplied the required information as to when the injury occurred and at least arguably informed employer where the injury occurred. But, the board concluded, the notation gave employer no information as to how the injury occurred, as required by the statute:
"[T]he fact remains that none of the entries contain[s] any explanation of Now' the injury occurred. All that is contained in the three logbook entries are the statements: 'Right Wrist Pain,' 'pain in right wrist,' and 'Right Wrist Pain Again.' No explanation is offered regarding 'how' the alleged injury happened. While claimant's notations in the logbook are similar to those of other workers and appeared to satisfy the employer's reporting procedures, claimant's written reports of injury did not satisfy the precise requirements of ORS 656.265(2) that written notice apprise the employer of when and where and how the injury occurred."
On review, claimant argues that the board erred in concluding that his notation in the logbook did not suffice to satisfy the requirements of ORS 656.265(2). Employer contends that the board correctly construed and applied the requirements of the statute.
ORS 656.265 provides, in part:
"(1) Notice of an accident resulting in an injury or death shall be given immediately by the worker to the employer, but not later than 90 days after the accident. The employer shall acknowledge forthwith receipt of such notice.
"(2) The notice need not be in any particular form. However, it shall be in writing and shall apprise the employer when and where and how an injury has occurred to a worker."
(Emphasis added.) We assume that the legislature did not intend the terms "when," "where," and "how" to be redundant and that each refers to a different item of information that claimants are required to supply their employers. See, e.g., deParrie v. City of Portland, 138 Or App 105, 111, 906 P2d 844 (1995), rev den 323 Or 114 (1996) (courts presume that the legislature did not intend statutory terms to be redundant). That certainly is the manner in which the terms ordinarily are used. PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 611, 859 P2d 1143 (1993) ("words of common usage typically should be given their plain, natural, and ordinary meaning").
"When" generally refers to the point in time at which an event occurs. Webster's Third New Int'l Dictionary, 2602 (unabridged ed 1993) (defining adverb "when" as "at what time : in what period : how long ago"). "Where" generally refers to the physical location of the event. Id. (defining adverb "where" as "at or in what place"). And "how" generally refers to the manner or means by which an event occurs. Id. at 1097 (defining "how" as, among other things, "in what manner or way by what means or process").
Nothing in the text or the context of ORS 656.265(2) suggests that the legislature intended anything other than the ordinary meanings of those terms. The question, then, is whether the entry of a date and the words "Right Wrist Pain" in employer's logbook apprised employer of "when and where and how" claimant's injury occurred within the ordinary meanings of those terms.
Certainly the entry of the date in the logbook informed employer when the injury occurred. Like the board, we are also prepared to accept that the fact that claimant made the entry in the logbook permits the inference that the injury occurred "at work" and that that information is sufficient to apprise employer of where the injury occurred. Like the board, however, we are not prepared to accept that the minimal information that claimant supplied satisfied the statutory requirement of apprising employer how the injury occurred. At best, claimant's entries informed employer that he suffered an injury on a specified date while at work. Nothing in those entries, however, provided any information about the manner, way, means, or process by which his right wrist pain occurred while at work. The board therefore correctly concluded that claimant's entry in employer's logbook was not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of ORS 656.265(2).
Citing Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Mock, 95 Or App 1, 5, 768 P2d 401, rev den 308 Or 79 (1989), claimant alternatively insists that he is not required to establish "how" the injury occurred, only that there is a possibility of workers' compensation liability. Mock, however, interpreted ORS 656.265(4)(a), not the statute at issue in this case.
Affirmed.