Department of Consumer & Business Services v. Muliro
359 Or. 736
| Or. | 2016Background
- Claimant Muliro sustained a workplace injury while employed by Adams & Gray Home Care - Marquis Home Health; she also worked for two other home health employers which Adams & Gray knew of.
- Claimant did not check boxes on Liberty claim forms indicating she had more than one employer; forms were submitted to Liberty without such notice.
- Liberty received claimant’s claim less than a week after filing; claimant provided statements but did not disclose secondary employment within 30 days of initial claim.
- Approximately nine months later, claimant sought supplemental temporary disability benefits; DCBS via ComPro denied due to lack of timely notice to insurer.
- Board relied on imputation of employer knowledge to insurer, holding notice was met when employer learned of secondary employment.
- Court of Appeals affirmed the board; Oregon Supreme Court reversed, holding actual notice to the insurer within 30 days is required and cannot be imputed from employer knowledge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ORS 656.210(2)(b)(A) requires actual notice to the insurer | Muliro winds that actual notice is required to insurer. | DCBS/ComPro argues statute requires insurer to receive notice; imputation possible. | Yes; insurer must receive actual notice within 30 days. |
| Whether employer knowledge can be imputed to the insurer to satisfy notice | Employer knowledge may be imputed to insurer to meet notice. | Board erred in imputing preexisting employer knowledge to insurer. | Imputation rejected; must be actual notice to insurer. |
| What is the proper interpretation of the terms 'receives' and 'notice' in ORS 656.210(2)(b)(A) | Context supports imputation; statute intended broader notice. | Text requires actual receipt by insurer; context does not override text. | Plain reading: 'receives notice' requires actual notice to insurer. |
Key Cases Cited
- PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606 (1993) (statutory interpretation framework and deference principles)
- State v. Gaines, 346 Or 742 (2009) (textual-contextual statutory interpretation utility)
- Anfilofieff v. SAIF, 52 Or App 127, 627 P2d 1274 (1981) (imputation between employer and insurer in claim processing)
- Nix v. SAIF, 80 Or App 656, 723 P2d 366 (1986) (imputation context in workers’ comp)
- Abbott v. SAIF, 103 Or App 49, 796 P2d 378 (1990) (imputation/notice in workers’ comp context)
- Valencia v. GEP BTL, LLC, 247 Or App 115, 269 P3d 65 (2011) (contextual considerations in notice interpretation)
- Blachana, LLC v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 354 Or 676, 318 P3d 735 (2014) (interpretation of non-delegative terms in statutes)
- Ohlig v. FMC Marine & Rail Equipment, 291 Or 586, 599-600, 633 P2d 1279 (1981) (dissent on interpretation of regulatory context in claims)