Court Opinion

ID: 9794821
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:12:24.717893+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:21:08.465018
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
DENECKE, J.
Plaintiff petitioned for rehearing asserting that the legislative history stated in our initial opinion was in error and, therefore, our decision based upon such history was necessarily wrong.
We were incorrect in our original opinion in stating: “Apparently, none of the benefits of the Oregon Compensation Act survived until Oregon Laws 1933, ch 128, was enacted.” However, that error does not lead to a reversal of our original decision because the two differently worded provisions concerning survival of compensation benefits were first in the same act in 1917, rather than in 1933.
*144The original act provided that permanent total disability benefits would survive, Oregon Laws 1913, ch 112, § 21, at 200. That act contained substantially the same language as is now in ORS 656.208: “If the injured workman dies during the period of permanent total disability,” benefits survive. (Emphasis added.) In 1917 an extensive revision of the compensation law was enacted. The revisions contained the language above quoted concerning total disability and added a provision for the survival of permanent partial. disability benefits which provided: “In case of the death of a workman receiving monthly payments on account of permanent partial disability” benefits survive. (Emphasis added.) Oregon Laws 1917, ch 288, § 21, p 554.
Petition denied.