LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
Reversing the state’s Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court of Oregon held an estate was authorized to pursue a request for hearing seeking an award of PPD benefits that claimant filed before his death, in spite of the fact that the cause of his death was unrelated to the work injury. The Court reasoned that such a conclusion was necessary when construing the provisions of Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.218, as a whole. That statute details what sorts of “persons” are entitled to receive benefits. The Court concluded that the use of the term “person” included not only the “persons” (e.g., dependents) described in the first sentence of subsection (5), but also a worker’s estate under the second sentence of subsection (5). The Court added that the statute’s use of the phrase “unpaid balance of the award” in the second sentence of subsection (5) did not restrict an estate’s entitlement to PPD benefits that were awarded before the worker’s death.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is the co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis).
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance. Bracketed citations link to lexis.com.
See Sather v. SAIF Corp., 357 Ore. 122, 2015 Ore. LEXIS 234 (Apr. 9, 2015) [357 Ore. 122, 2015 Ore. LEXIS 234 (Apr. 9, 2015)]
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 89.03 [89.03]
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law.
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site