Hill v. Trader Joes — Court orders reconsideration under new workers’ compensation rules

Case
In the Matter of the Compensation of Donald D. Hill, Claimant; Donald D. Hill v. Trader Joes – Trader Joes Company and Sedgwick CMS
Court
Oregon Court of Appeals
Judge
Shorr, Presiding Judge; Powers, Judge; O’Connor, Judge
Date Decided
September 23, 2026
Docket No.
A182526
Topics
Workers’ Compensation; Claim Closure; Statutory Amendments; Preservation
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Donald D. Hill suffered a compensable right-knee injury in April 2019 while working for Trader Joes. After surgery and rehabilitation, his physician declared him medically stationary as of November 12, 2020. An initial claim closure was rescinded because the record lacked sufficient information to determine Hill’s permanent disability.

Following a May 2022 closing examination, the physician again assigned the November 2020 medically stationary date. Trader Joes issued a new Notice of Closure awarding permanent partial disability, and the closure was upheld on reconsideration, by an administrative law judge, and by the Workers’ Compensation Board. While Hill’s judicial-review petition was pending, 2022 amendments to Oregon’s workers’ compensation statutes became applicable on January 1, 2024. Among other changes, the amendments generally prohibited a provider from retroactively setting a medically stationary date more than 60 days before the determination.

The Court’s Holding

The Court of Appeals held that the 2022 amendments applied to Hill’s claim because the legislation expressly covered all claims existing on January 1, 2024, except disputes finally determined before that date. Hill’s claim remained pending in the Court of Appeals, and the parties agreed that the Board’s order had not become final because Hill had timely sought judicial review.

The court rejected the employer’s arguments that the amendments could not apply retroactively and that doing so would produce an absurd result. The applicability language was unambiguous, even though it did not use the word “retroactive,” and the legislative history reflected an expectation that unresolved cases would become subject to the new requirements. The court also excused Hill’s failure to raise the issue below because he had no practical opportunity to do so before January 1, 2024. It reversed and remanded for reconsideration under the amended law without reaching Hill’s separate challenge to the evidence supporting closure.

Key Takeaways

  • The 2022 amendments apply to workers’ compensation claims that remained pending and lacked a final determination on January 1, 2024, regardless of the injury or filing date.
  • A timely petition for judicial review prevented the Board’s order from becoming final for purposes of the amendments’ applicability provision.
  • Preservation was excused because Hill could not have known before January 1, 2024, that his claim would still be pending when the amendments became applicable.

Why It Matters

The decision confirms that Oregon’s amended claim-processing protections govern older workers’ compensation claims still in litigation on January 1, 2024. Employers and administrators may therefore need to revisit otherwise proper pre-2024 claim-processing decisions when those claims remained unresolved on the applicability date.

The opinion also illustrates that Oregon courts may excuse preservation and administrative issue exhaustion when a statutory argument could not practically have been raised before the agency issued its decision.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top