Case Name: Rebekah Eileen HASS, Petitioner, v. EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT and PeaceHealth, Respondents
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2011-06-29
Citations: 244 Or. App. 131
Docket Number: 10AB2771; A146938
Parties: Rebekah Eileen HASS, Petitioner, v. EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT and PeaceHealth, Respondents.
Judges: Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Sercombe, Judge, and Rosenblum, Senior Judge.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 244
Pages: 131–132

Head Matter:
Submitted May 6,
reversed and remanded for reconsideration June 29, 2011
Rebekah Eileen HASS, Petitioner, v. EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT and PeaceHealth, Respondents.
Employment Appeals Board
10AB2771; A146938
258 P3d 1287
Rebekah E. Hass filed the brief pro se.
Denise G. Fjordbeck waived appearance for respondent Employment Department.
No appearance for respondent PeaceHealth.
Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Sercombe, Judge, and Rosenblum, Senior Judge.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Claimant seeks judicial review of a final order of the Employment Appeals Board (EAB). After the Employment Department denied her claim for benefits, claimant failed to submit a request for hearing within the 20 days provided by ORS 657.269; she submitted her request for hearing three days late. After a hearing, the administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that claimant had not demonstrated good cause to extend the 20-day deadline and, therefore, dismissed her request for hearing. See ORS 657.875 ("The period within which an interested party may request a hearing may be extended, upon a showing of good cause therefor, a reasonable time under the circumstances of each particular case."). Thereafter, claimant appealed to the EAB and also provided some additional materials relating to the issue of good cause. The EAB affirmed the AJL's decision "without opinion."
As we recently explained in Opp v. Employment Dept., 242 Or App 673, 676, 259 P3d 15 (2011), when the EAB affirms an ALJ without opinion, and without adopting the findings and conclusions of the ALJ, "ipso facto its order cannot be supported by substantial reason." See also ORS 657.275(2) (board may enter findings and conclusions or adopt findings and conclusions of the ALJ). Such an order is insufficient as a matter of law, and we must, therefore, remand the case to the EAB for it to make findings and set forth its conclusions. See Opp, 242 Or App at 676. In addition, we note that claimant submitted additional information to the board with her appeal and if, on remand, the "board finds that additional evidence is required to reach a decision, it may remand the matter to the administrative law judge to obtain additional evidence in the matter." ORS 657.275(1).
Reversed and remanded for reconsideration.