|
All Contested Case Subject
Standard of Review
In General
A question of fact exists when determining whether potential injections are curative, palliative, or prescription medications. Walters, Matthew A.,
14 CCHR 151 (2009).
ORS 656.283(2)(c) states that in vocational assistance disputes, an ALJ can only modify the director's administrative review if it violates a statute or rule, exceeds the agency's statutory authority, made upon unlawful procedure, or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion. Miller, James A,
12 CCHR 105 (2007).
ORS 656.283(2)(c) states that in vocational assistance disputes, an ALJ can only modify the Director's administrative review if it violates a statute or rule, exceeds the agency's statutory authority, made upon unlawful procedure, or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion. Miller, James A*,
8 CCHR 16 (2007).
An administrative order relating to medical services may be modified at hearing if it reflects an error of law or is not supported by substantial evidence. Rojo-Heredia, Hector*,
11 CCHR 294 (2006).
WCD committed an error in law by applying the wrong statute to determine appropriateness in an MCO dispute. Heer, Mary K.,
7 CCHR 328 (2002).
Abuse of Discretion
Using the analysis of Liberty Northwest v. Jacobson for reviewing the director's decision in a vocational eligibility case, the ALJ determined that the test for abuse of discretion is whether the decision reached was "clearly against reason and evidence." Reyes-Joya, Jose,
12 CCHR 341 (2007).
RRU did not abuse its discretion by relying on an earlier "more chronologically-relevant opinion" when an attending physician's opinion released claimant to return to work for an inventory job and it was not until six months later that the same attending physician changed the physician's own opinion to find the inventory job was not suitable. Reyes-Joya, Jose,
12 CCHR 341 (2007).
Under the parameters of this vocational eligibility case the director does not have the authority to address or alter the temporary disability rate, therefore, there is no error in insurer's calculation of claimant's weekly wage for vocational eligibility purposes. Allen, Jim Ray*,
12 CCHR 299 (2007).
The director's order was not characterized by abuse of discretion when the director based the findings contained in the order on the medical evidence, claimant's average weekly wage, claimant's work history and skills, and information obtained by reviewing the labor market. Tsomo, Pema*,
12 CCHR 288 (2007).
The director's order did not violate a statute or rule when a residual employability analysis and the director determined that claimant has the necessary skills, claimant is currently performing similar part-time work, and claimant did not offer any expert vocational evidence to rebut the conclusions that claimant did possess such skills. Tsomo, Pema*,
12 CCHR 288 (2007).
It was not an abuse of discretion when the director's order affirmed a notice of ineligibility because the record established that claimant did not focus adequately on the task of compiling basic employment information. Robinson, Gills M,
12 CCHR 260 (2007).
The director did not abuse its discretion finding a worker ineligible for vocational assistance because the employer terminated the worker for cause when the worker neither appeared for work nor phoned-in to report unavailability. Reyes-Joya, Jose*,
12 CCHR 231 (2007).
Under an abuse of discretion standard of review, the ALJ does not have the authority to decide that one evaluation is more persuasive than another. Graham, Sherman,
12 CCHR 204 (2007).
The director's order was not made upon unlawful procedure when the director relied on the opinion of the attending physician over the medical arbiter. Drew, Monty L,
12 CCHR 173 (2007).
In a vocational assistance dispute, an order on review may only be modified if it violates a statue or rule, exceeds the director's authority, is characterized by abuse of discretion, or was made upon unlawful procedures. Helstowski, Steven E*,
12 CCHR 176 (2007).
In a dispute over vocational assistance when new evidence becomes available after the director's review and is admissible, an ALJ can find that the director's conclusion was an abuse of discretion based on the new evidence even though the evidence was unavailable to the director. Caswell, Dianna L*,
12 CCHR 121 (2007).
It was not an abuse of discretion for the director to affirm the Notice of Ineligibility for vocational assistance when claimant made little effort to cooperate with the vocational counselor and failed to respond to written notices. Shahad, Jassem M*,
12 CCHR 92 (2007).
A Director's Review and Order can only be modified if it was characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion and the challenging party has the burden of proof. Geehan, Teresa M,
11 CCHR 212 (2006).
The standard of review is limited to claimant's assertion that RRU did not investigate claimant's allegations. Evidence that was not previously considered can be admitted. Clay, Billy,
9 CCHR 347 (2004).
The director disagreed with the ALJ's conclusion that RRU abused its discretion by failing to fully investigate the nature of claimant's job at injury when finding claimant ineligible for vocational assistance. Brooke, Teresa*,
8 CCHR 240 (2003).
RRU did not abuse its discretion when it relied on job orders filed with the Employment Dept., and found that some jobs were not suitable because they were not within a reasonable commuting distance, and discounted the jobs that RRU found required prior experience. Shorb, Michael R.,
8 CCHR 224 (2003).
RRU's misinterpretation of administrative rule amounts to abuse of discretion. Nolan, Timothy S.*,
8 CCHR 48 (2003).
RRU did not abuse its discretion or fail to fully investigate where record made it clear that RRU was aware of all pertinent facts and statute and rule authorized the process RRU followed. Brown, Richard M.,
8 CCHR 52 (2003).
RRU abused its discretion by failing to fully investigate the nature of claimant's job at injury. Brooke, Teresa*,
8 CCHR 33 (2003).
|
