From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Armstrong v. Saif

Oregon Court of Appeals
Aug 18, 1982
649 P.2d 818 (Or. Ct. App. 1982)

Opinion

WCB No. 80-01476, CA A24685

On petitioner's reconsideration filed June 28, 1982.

Appeal dismissed May 26, reconsideration allowed; order adhered to August 18, 1982.

Judicial Review from Workers' Compensation Board.

Robert K. Udziela, and Pozzi, Wilson, Atchison, O'Leary Conboy, Portland, for petition.

Before Thornton, Presiding Judge, Joseph, Chief Judge, and Warden, Judge.


PER CURIAM

Reconsideration allowed; order adhered to.



The Workers' Compensation Board's order on review states that it was mailed on December 31, 1981. Claimant's petition for judicial review recites that "Claimant's attorneys were not served with the Order on Review and Order Denying Remand until May 12, 1982." The notice of appeal was filed on May 17, 1982. We dismissed the petition on our own motion as not being timely under ORS 656.295(8):

"An order of the board is final unless within 30 days after the date of mailing of copies of such order to the parties, one of the parties appeals to the Court of Appeals for judicial review pursuant to ORS 656.928. * * *"

Accepting as true that claimant's counsel did not receive the order until some 132 days after it purportedly was mailed, still the statute is quite clear. The order became final on January 30, 1982, and judicial review was not sought within that period. ORS 656.298(1). Relying on Stroh v. SAIF, 1471 Or. 117, 492 P.2d 472 (1972); Wisherd v. Paul Koch Volkswagen, 28 Or. App. 513, 559 P.2d 1305 (1977); and Stevens v. SAIF, 149 Or. App. 412, 531 P.2d 921 (1975), all of which deal with other provisions of ORS 656.295, claimant argues that ORS 656.295(8) is not jurisdictional. We hold that it is jurisdictional.

According to an affidavit submitted with the petition for reconsideration, claimant never received a copy of the order.

Relying principally on Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 46, 92 S Ct 862, 31 L Ed 2d 36 (1972), claimant asserts that the dismissal of his petition for judicial review constitutes a violation of his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. The thrust of the holding in Lindsey is that a state cannot impose conditions that effectively preclude indigents from perfecting appeals. Absent any showing here that the failure of the claimant and his counsel to receive notice of the Board's action during the 30-day period after the mailing of the order was caused by the Board, claimant's situation does not fall within the proscription of Lindsey. ORS 656.295(8) involves a notice procedure that is "reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties" of their procedural situation, and that is all that is required. Mullane v. Central Hanover Tr. Company, 339 U.S. 306, 314, 70 S Ct 652, 94 L Ed 865 (1950). Again, absent any showing why the notice was not timely received, claimant has not demonstrated that his due process rights were violated. See Greene v. Lindsey, 456 U.S. 444, 102 S Ct 1874, 72 L Ed 2d 249 (1982).

Reconsideration allowed; order adhered to.


Summaries of

Armstrong v. Saif

Oregon Court of Appeals
Aug 18, 1982
649 P.2d 818 (Or. Ct. App. 1982)
Case details for

Armstrong v. Saif

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Compensation of Ray C. Armstrong, Claimant…

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Aug 18, 1982

Citations

649 P.2d 818 (Or. Ct. App. 1982)
649 P.2d 818

Citing Cases

Catlin Abel School v. Turcotte

Because petitioners have not shown that their failure to receive the order was caused by the Board, the order…

Berliner v. Weyerhaeuser Company

We retain jurisdiction over the petition pending the referee's report. Armstrong v. SAIF, 58 Or. App. 602, …