|
All Contested Case Subject
Remand
Warranted-In General
Where evidence is offered at hearing that is inadmissible because it is new, although related to an issue properly raised below, the director may remand the matter to the fact finder to consider that evidence. Landis, Guy A.,
17 CCHR 4 (2012).
In a dispute where the claimant was found ineligible for vocational services under ORS 656.340, remand was necessary because the Director's Order based its conclusions on the attending physician's concurrence with a medical report that did not address all of the claimant's physical limitations. Jones, Victor L.,
16 CCHR 364 (2011).
Remand was proper in a dispute where a Director's Order found the claimant ineligible for vocational services under ORS 656.340 because the order did not explain how claimant could perform his regular work in light of the permanent restrictions the order found the claimant is subject to. Jones, Victor L.,
16 CCHR 364 (2011).
Remand was proper where the administrative reviewer had improperly dismissed a medical fee payment dispute on the grounds the issue had been decided in a prior administrative order. Gonzalez, Juvenal,
16 CCHR 278 (2011).
Remand for further administrative review was appropriate under OAR 436-001-0246(3) where the review failed to address the issue presented to it. Kirkpatrick, Daren S.,
16 CCHR 219 (2011).
Remand was proper where request for review was improperly dismissed as untimely and medical section had not yet addressed the merits of the dispute. Weitzman, David*,
15 CCHR 295 (2010).
Where the dispute concerned the causal relationship between the requested service and the accepted injury, and WCD issued an order concerning the dispute, WCB had jurisdiction so the matter had to be transferred to the WCB for further proceedings. Sloan, Donald G.*,
15 CCHR 233 (2010).
Remand was proper where request for review was improperly dismissed as untimely and medical section had not yet addressed the merits of the dispute. Weitzman, David*,
15 CCHR 227 (2010).
Matter remanded where the division improperly dismissed claimant's request for review of an MCO matter because claimant's counsel did not submit additional information within three business days. Brown, Kory L.,
15 CCHR 100 (2010).
Remand was appropriate, where the controlling issue was not raised by the parties, and the parties were denied an opportunity to address the issue. Weber, Kristina M.,
15 CCHR 81 (2010).
Remand was warranted because WCD's order did not address issues raised during the review proceedings. Bores, Edward,
15 CCHR 69 (2010).
Remand was appropriate, in a medical services dispute, where the ALJ found the record was unclear as to whether or not the issue of causal relationship was "still viable" at the time of the director's proceeding. Corum, Eric,
15 CCHR 26 (2010).
Remand is appropriate for the resolution team to consider the merits of claimant's requests for administrative review of insurer's denial of authorization for palliative care, and authorization requests without a response from the insurer. Bergmanis, Nichele,
14 CCHR 196 (2009).
In a dispute regarding a proposed medical treatment, where WCD found the insurer was barred from disputing the appropriateness of the proposed medical treatment under OAR 436-010-0250(5), remand was appropriate to consider whether evidence offered at the hearing should be admitted. Flewellin, John K.,
14 CCHR 178 (2009).
Because new evidence is added to this vocational dispute matter at the board level, as allowed by 436-001-0170(1), this vocational dispute matter is remanded to the director as allowed by 436-001-0170(4), for its consideration of this new evidence. Barton, Mark,
14 CCHR 76 (2009).
Remand is appropriate because it was an error of law for RT to rely exclusively on a partial sentence of the rule to determine that payment for a records review was inappropriate without considering alternative bases for payment. Gilbert, Timothy R.,
14 CCHR 24 (2009).
The ALJ remanded WCD's decision regarding a "substantial handicap to employment" question which was based on cost estimator labor market information because the decision was an abuse of discretion or, in the alternative, it was a violation of OAR 436-120-0005(12)(b) when several counties within 50 miles of the claimant's residence were not included in the labor market search. Van Cleave, Tyler,
14 CCHR 1 (2009).
Medical services dispute remanded to WCD for a determination on the merits where ALJ's decision limited to issue of timeliness. Rawlins, Lisa,
13 CCHR 507 (2008).
Remand is necessary for the director to determine whether its action of failing to copy employer's counsel with the Notice of Required Action on a Medical Dispute prejudiced the employer. Patterson, David A,
13 CCHR 276 (2008).
Any contradictory conclusions in WCD orders addressing the same parties, same issues, and same evidence necessitate explanation for the change of opinion. Jimenez, Tammie D,
13 CCHR 81 (2008).
Issues raised in the request for MRU review should be addressed in an order, when they are not it is appropriate to remand the order to MRU. Smith, Howard D,
13 CCHR 15 (2008).
Issues raised in the request for MRU review should be addressed in an order, when they are not it is appropriate to remand the order to MRU. Smith, Howard D,
13 CCHR 17 (2008).
The case was dismissed because MRU found it was not ripe for review, however the ALJ found that the request was ripe for a decision on the merits and remanded the case back to the division. Landis, Guy A*,
13 CCHR 6 (2008).
Remand is warranted to allow MRU to address the applicability of ORS 656.245 (4)(b)(D) before determining whether insurer is liable for medical services. Jimenez, Tammie D,
12 CCHR 247 (2007).
If the appropriateness of surgery is disputed and there is a pending hearing concerning the compensability of the condition for which the surgery is proposed, the matter should be remanded to the director to defer review until compensability of the condition is determined. Sheets, Stephen R,
12 CCHR 139 (2007).
Remand is appropriate when RRU and ALJ abuse their discretion and violate a statue or rule by failing to address key elements. Miller, James A,
11 CCHR 147 (2006).
Remanded for MRU to determine whether the dispute is over the proposed surgery or over a new surgery request. Callahan, Richard,
9 CCHR 327 (2004).
Insurer is responsible for treatments pursuant to the court's instructions. Ross, Paul E.,
9 CCHR 214 (2004).
MRU erred in declining to address whether the proposed treatment is experimental and therefore inappropriate under ORS 656.327; this matter is remanded for determination. Lusby, Judy M.*,
8 CCHR 322 (2003).
Medical appropriateness dispute is remanded to MRU where MRU erred in dismissing for untimeliness. Leon-Torres, Martin,
8 CCHR 303 (2003).
This case is remanded so MRU could clarify its reasoning for finding that a trigger point injection was an appropriate treatment. Heer, Mary K.,
7 CCHR 378 (2002).
MRU incorrectly decided based upon filing date, and the case was remanded to determine if the proposed surgery was excessive, inappropriate, or ineffectual. Ennis, Garry L.,
7 CCHR 75 (2002).
Warranted-Incomplete Record
Where there is no direct evidence in the record concerning the disputed issue, remand is proper to further develop the record. Meier, William,
16 CCHR 26 (2011).
Remand to the director is appropriate where the record is not sufficiently developed without copies of contracts mentioned in the administrative orders, and where the record is not sufficiently developed to decide issues of timeliness and penalties. Laurelhurst Physical Therapy,
15 CCHR 173 (2010).
A remand to WCD is warranted because insufficient information existed for WCD to calculate claimant's adjusted weekly wage along with the amount that would be a "suitable wage" to determine eligibility for vocational services since the record does not prove the amount of claimant's unemployment insurance benefits or the number of weeks when claimant received those benefits during the 52-week period prior to the injury. Perez, Francisco,
14 CCHR 5 (2009).
A matter should be remanded to MRU when the Amended Administrative Order refers to evidence that is not in the record and the term is needed to resolve the question. Nieves, Andre,
11 CCHR 88 (2006).
|
