Kyle J. Hoppe, 65 Van Natta 621 (March 21, 2013). The carrier accepted claimant’s claim as non-disabling. In a later Modified Notice of Acceptance (MNOA), the carrier accepted additional conditions but the document was silent regarding whether the newly accepted conditions were disabling or non-disabling. Claimant argued the MNOA was invalid.
The Board, citing Johansen v. SAIF, 158 Or App 672 (1999), noted that a new medical condition claim is entitled to its own classification of disabling or non-disabling. The Board also noted OAR 436-060-0140(5)(b) requires that an acceptance notice indicate whether a claim is disabling or non-disabling. Since the MNOA did not identify whether the newly accepted conditions were disabling or non-disabling, the Board held the MNOA was invalid and unreasonable and awarded both an out-of-compensation fee and a penalty-related attorney fee.