SAIF v. Carlos-Macias

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Workers Compensation
  • Date Filed: 03-21-2018
  • Case #: A150950
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Armstrong, P.J. for the Court; Tookey, J.; & Shorr, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Diagnostic services necessary to determine the cause or extent of an already-accepted injury or condition are compensable as defined in ORS chapter 656. SAIF v. Carlos-Macias,262 Or App 629, 631, 325 P3d 827 (2014)

The Supreme Court remanded this case for reconsideration in light of its decision in Brown v. SAIF, 361 Or 241 (2017) (Brown II), to determine whether “the meaning of ‘compensable injury’ in ORS 656.005(7)(a)(B) applies to the meaning of ‘compensable injury’ in ORS 656.245.”

The definitions provided in “ORS chapter 656 govern the construction” of the terms in that chapter.” See ORS 656.003. ORS 656.005(7) therefore “defines ‘compensable injury’ for purposes of ORS chapter 656.” The term “compensable injury” “plainly refers . . . to the previously accepted medical condition” in ORS 656.245 and “to the accepted injury” as defined in ORS 656.005(7)(a). Brown II. Diagnostic services necessary to determine “the cause or extent” of an “already-accepted injury or condition” are therefore compensable. SAIF v. Carlos-Macias, 262 Or App 629, 631, 325 P3d 827 (2014). The Court, affirming the board’s order, held that “diagnostic services were compensable because they were necessary to determine the extent of [Carlos-Macias’s] disability from his accepted condition.” Affirmed. 

Advanced Search

Back to Top