Definition Counts The graph gives historical values of net PTD grants. The sharp increase of net grants in 2002 is more due to fewer rescissions than to the increase in grants. PTD grants, and hence net grants, have declined substantially since 1988, greatly exceeding the drop in claims. For example, accepted disabling claims dropped by 38.0 percent from 1988 to 1998, while net PTD grants dropped by 94.9 percent. Reasons for decreasing PTD awards are listed below, with the primary contributors in bold: 1. Fewer injuries and accepted disabling claims. Improved workplace safety, changes to the Oregon industry mix, and tighter compensability standards (particularly major contributing cause, objective findings, disease criteria, and aggravation requirements). 2. Law changes in 1987 (HB 2900). DCBS director-prescribed disability standards (OAR 436, Divisions 30 and 35), reduced Workers Compensation Board own motion authority, and change in the court review standard from de novo (over again, anew) to substantial evidence. 3. Law changes in 1990 (SB 1197). Claim disposition agreements (compromise and release of benefits per ORS 656.236), required reconsideration of claim closures, elimination of clear and convincing evidence as a reason to exceed the disability standards, and medical arbiters for impairment disagreements. 4. Law changes in 1995 (SB 369). Limitation on evidence at levels beyond reconsideration; prohibiting (at subsequent levels) issues that were not raised at, nor arise out of, the reconsideration; and definition of gainful occupation (ORS 656.206(1)(a)). 5. Administrative rule requirement for a certified vocational counselor to establish the futility of seeking work if claimant hasnt made reasonable search efforts. See OAR 030-055(4)(c). Costs Information about the PTD claims and
workers One reconsideration and all six hearing PTD grants were reinstatements of rescinded awards. Five of the hearing actions were by stipulation. All but two of the grants (one reconsideration, one hearing) were based on medical impairment considerations only no non-impairment (odd lot) factors were mentioned. Four of the grants were for claims that included accepted psychological conditions.
If you have questions about the information contained in this document please contact by e-mail or phone: Russ Reed, Research Analyst, Research & Analysis Section, Information Management Division (503) 947-7343. This document was originally published in January 2004. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), this publication is available in alternative formats by calling (503) 378-4100 (V/TTY). The information in IMD publications is in the public domain and may be reprinted without permission. |