Chapter 655

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Benefit availability for inmates engaged in prison work programs, (1996) Vol 48, p 134

      655.505 to 655.550

NOTES OF DECISIONS

      Where there was evidence that inmate had residual physical limitations from compensable back injury but no evidence to show that they affected his ability to obtain and hold employment, there was no basis to make award for permanent partial disability. Meyers v. SAIF, 38 Or App 389, 590 P2d 285 (1979)

      Inmate Injury Act, ORS 655.505 to 655.550, incorporates attorney fees provisions of Workers’ Compensation Law, ORS chapter 656. Dept. of Justice v. Spear, 308 Or 594, 783 P2d 998 (1989)

      655.510

NOTES OF DECISIONS

      Test for compensability set forth in this section, and not test described under ORS 656.005, is applicable to inmate injuries. Dept. of Justice v. Spear, 94 Or App 677, 767 P2d 928 (1989), aff’d on other grounds, 308 Or 594, 783 P2d 998 (1989)

      655.520

NOTES OF DECISIONS

      Workers’ Compensation Board does not have de novo review of Department of Justice decision not to waive late filing. Dept. of Justice v. Bryant, 101 Or App 226, 790 P2d 42 (1990), Sup Ct review denied

      Exceptions to filing requirements for worker’s claims, ORS 656.265 (4)(a), are not applicable to inmate’s claim for benefits filed under ORS chapter 655, because they are inconsistent with this section. Dept. of Justice v. Bryant, 101 Or App 226, 790 P2d 42 (1990), Sup Ct review denied

      Filing of report with prison safety officer does not meet requirement of filing claim with department. Kemery v. SAIF, 141 Or App 314, 918 P2d 124 (1996)

      655.525

NOTES OF DECISIONS

      This section provides for recovery of attorney fees by claimant in appeal to board or circuit court. Johnson v. State Acc. Ins. Fund, 267 Or 299, 516 P2d 1289 (1973); Dept. of Justice v. Spear, 94 Or App 677, 767 P2d 928 (1989), aff’d 308 Or 594, 783 P2d 998 (1989)

      655.605

NOTES OF DECISIONS

      Injured workers participating in authorized program of vocational rehabilitation supplied by Vocational Rehabilitation Division under contract with Field Services Division of Workers Compensation Board are not VRD clients in “special training or evaluation program” under this section. Firkus v. Alder Creek Lumber, 48 Or App 251, 617 P2d 620 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

      655.615

NOTES OF DECISIONS

      Original employer was responsible for injury suffered while worker was enrolled in vocational rehabilitation program, as worker was not Vocational Rehabilitation Division client within meaning of ORS 655.605. Firkus v. Alder Creek Lumber, 48 Or App 251, 617 P2d 620 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

      Under former version of this section, where claimant’s name was not on list of Vocational Rehabilitation Division clients submitted to State Accident Insurance Fund but was included on internal memorandum of clients to be insured by SAIF which was not furnished to SAIF, this was not sufficient to meet statutory notice requirements and claimant was not entitled to benefits. SAIF v. Hermann, 53 Or App 672, 633 P2d 22 (1981)