Case Name: In the Matter of the Compensation of Terri L. Preston, Claimant. SAIF CORPORATION; and DCI Holdings, Inc., Petitioners, v. Terri L. PRESTON, Respondent
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2013-01-09
Citations: 254 Or. App. 507
Docket Number: 0901227; A144676
Parties: In the Matter of the Compensation of Terri L. Preston, Claimant. SAIF CORPORATION; and DCI Holdings, Inc., Petitioners, v. Terri L. PRESTON, Respondent.
Judges: Before Schuman, Presiding Judge, and Wollheim, Judge, and Nakamoto, Judge.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 254
Pages: 507–508

Head Matter:
Submitted on remand from the Oregon Supreme Court November 30, 2012,
affirmed January 9, 2013
In the Matter of the Compensation of Terri L. Preston, Claimant. SAIF CORPORATION; and DCI Holdings, Inc., Petitioners, v. Terri L. PRESTON, Respondent.
Workers’ Compensation Board
0901227; A144676
295 P3d 682
David L. Runner for petitioners.
Matthew L. Roy and Dunn & Roy for respondent.
Before Schuman, Presiding Judge, and Wollheim, Judge, and Nakamoto, Judge.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Like SAIF v. Haley, 254 Or App 410, 296 P3d 560 (2012), this case is on remand from the Supreme Court. SAIF Corporation v. Preston, 352 Or 564, 291 P3d 736 (2012). In our earlier decision, 242 Or App 571, 256 P3d 160 (2011), we held that claimant was not entitled to an insurer-paid attorney fee under ORS 656.382(2) (2007) because, although SAIF had at one point challenged her entitlement to permanent partial disability and she ultimately prevailed, she did not prevail at the same hearing that considered SAIF's challenge; rather, she prevailed at a subsequent hearing before the Workers' Compensation Board. We relied on our decision in SAIF v. DeLeon, 241 Or App 614, 251 P3d 794 (2011). The Supreme Court has now reversed that decision, SAIF v. DeLeon, 352 Or 130, 282 P3d 800 (2012), and held that the claimant in that case was entitled to insurer-paid attorney fees because she ultimately prevailed after the insurer had challenged her award at an earlier stage — the same circumstances as here. On remand, therefore, we reinstate the Workers' Compensation Board order and the insurer-paid attorney fees that the board awarded. Accord Haley, 254 Or App at 411-12.
Affirmed.
ORS 656.382(2) (2007) provides, in. part:
"If a request for hearing * is initiated by an employer or insurer, and the board finds that the compensation awarded to a claimant should not be disallowed or reduced, the employer or insurer shall be required to pay to the claimant or the attorney of the claimant a reasonable attorney fee for legal representation by an attorney for the claimant at and prior to the hearing