Court of Appeals News

There has been some good news for workers from the Court of Appeals this year:

In Brown v. SAIF, 262 Or App 640 (2014), the Court held that an “otherwise compensable injury” is not defined by what conditions the insurer has accepted, but is rather “the work injury resulting from the work accident that caused the disability or need for treatment.”  The Court applied this principle  in SAIF v. Carlos-Macias, 262 Or App 629 (2014).  In Carlos-Macias, the Court said that the terms “compensable injury” and “accepted condition” are not interchangeable.  The insurer had refused to pay for a proposed diagnostic medical service, arguing that it was not needed for the “accepted conditions.”  Because the law says that injured workers are to receive medical services for the compensable injury, this includes diagnostic procedures for conditions not yet discovered.

If you have question regarding your workers’ compensation claim, please contact the law office of Philip H. Garrow

Similar Posts