Legal Opinion · Dissent

SAIF Corp. v. Tull

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided June 10, 1992No. WCB 88-17674; CA A68781Published

1DissentWarren, J.

The Board found that SAIF accepted claimant’s claim for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) solely because its claim representative indicated that the claim had been accepted on an 801 form. However, there is no evidence that SAIF ever notified claimant that it was accepting that claim. The majority affirms, on the basis of its conclusion that ORS 656.262(6) “presumes that acceptance has already occurred when it requires that notice of the acceptance be furnished to the claimant.” 113 Or App at 454. Because Oregon precedents hold that acceptance cannot occur without notice to the claimant, I dissent.

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Bauman v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1983
  2. Johnson v. Spectra PhysicsOregon Supreme Court · 1987
  3. EBI Insurance v. CNA InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1989
  4. Stevenson v. Blue CrossCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API