Court Opinion

ID: 9535343
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:48:18.060958+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:13.492756
License: Public Domain

EDMONDS, J.,
concurring.
Under the applicable statutory and administrative rule scheme, the only issues on which demeanor-based credibility could be crucial in the determination of permanent total disability are the issues under ORS 656.206(3).1 As to those issues, claimants have the opportunity to meet the burden imposed by the statute by submitting affidavits, including their own, on reconsideration. Under ORS 656.283(7), the administrative law judge “may conduct the hearing in any manner that will achieve substantial justice.” It is evident that the legislature contemplated a process whereby any inadequacy, such as an insufficient record arising from the restriction of evidence through affidavits to determine credibility, could be addressed at the hearing level. In that light, ORS 656.283(7) meets general due process standards. That *252does not mean, in my view, that in a particular case, a claimant could not make a successful “as applied” challenge if denied the ability to meaningfully controvert an adverse credibility finding after the reconsideration process and if denied the protection of the statute.
For this reason, I concur with the majority opinion.
Warren, S. J., joins in this concurrence.

 ORS 656.206(3) provides:
“The worker has the burden of proving permanent total disability status and must establish that the worker is willing to seek regular gainful employment and that the worker has made reasonable efforts to obtain such employment.”