The opinion
PER CURIAM
Like SAIF v. Haley, 254 Or App 410 , 296 P3d 560 (2012), this case is on remand from the Supreme Court. SAIF Corporation v. Preston, 352 Or 564 , 291 P3d 736 (2012). In our earlier decision, 242 Or App 571 , 256 P3d 160 (2011), we held that claimant was not entitled to an insurer-paid attorney fee under ORS 656.382(2) (2007) 1 because, although SAIF had at one point challenged her entitlement to permanent partial disability and she ultimately prevailed, she did not prevail at the same hearing that considered SAIF’s challenge; rather, she prevailed at a subsequent hearing before the Workers’ Compensation Board. We relied on our decision in SAIF v. DeLeon, 241 Or App 614 , 251 P3d 794 (2011). The Supreme Court has now reversed that decision, SAIF v. DeLeon, 352 Or 130 , 282 P3d 800 (2012), and held that the claimant in that case was entitled to insurer-paid attorney fees because she ultimately prevailed after the insurer had challenged her award at an earlier stage — the same circumstances as here. On remand, therefore, we reinstate the Workers’ Compensation Board order and the insurer-paid attorney fees that the board awarded. Accord Haley, 254 Or App at 411-12 .
Affirmed.
ORS 656.382(2) (2007) provides, in. part:
“If a request for hearing ** * * is initiated by an employer or insurer, and the * * * board * * * finds that the compensation awarded to a claimant should not be disallowed or reduced, the employer or insurer shall be required to pay to the claimant or the attorney of the claimant a reasonable attorney fee * * * for legal representation by an attorney for the claimant at and prior to the hearing * *