# Hass v. Employment Department

> Court of Appeals of Oregon · June 29, 2011 · 244 Or. App. 131

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2465283

## Case

- **Full name:** Rebekah Eileen HASS, Petitioner, v. EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT and PeaceHealth, Respondents
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Oregon
- **Decided:** June 29, 2011
- **Citations:** 244 Or. App. 131; 258 P.3d 1287; 2011 Ore. App. LEXIS 924
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Ortega, Sercombe, Rosenblum
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2465283

## Opinion text

*132
PER CURIAM
Claimant seeks judicial review of a final order of the Employment Appeals Board (EAB). After the Employment Department denied her claim for benefits, claimant failed to submit a request for hearing within the 20 days provided by ORS 657.269; she submitted her request for hearing three days late. After a hearing, the administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that claimant had not demonstrated good cause to extend the 20-day deadline and, therefore, dismissed her request for hearing.
See
ORS 657.875 (“The period within which an interested party may request a hearing * * * may be extended, upon a showing of good cause therefor, a reasonable time under the circumstances of each particular case.”). Thereafter, claimant appealed to the EAB and also provided some additional materials relating to the issue of good cause. The EAB affirmed the AJL’s decision “without opinion.”
As we recently explained in
Opp v. Employment
Dept., 242 Or App 673, 676 , 259 P3d 15 (2011), when the EAB affirms an ALJ without opinion, and without adopting the findings and conclusions of the ALJ,
“ipso facto
its order cannot be supported by substantial reason.”
See also
ORS 657.275(2) (board may enter findings and conclusions or adopt findings and conclusions of the ALJ). Such an order is insufficient as a matter of law, and we must, therefore, remand the case to the EAB for it to make findings and set forth its conclusions.
See Opp,
242 Or App at 676 . In addition, we note that claimant submitted additional information to the board with her appeal and if, on remand, the “board finds that additional evidence is required to reach a decision, it may remand the matter to the administrative law judge * * * to obtain additional evidence in the matter.” ORS 657.275(1).
Reversed and remanded for reconsideration.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2465283. Public record. Not legal advice.