Butcher v. SAIF Corp., 247 OrApp 684 (2012)

Holding:   Paragraph 1(a) of the relevant workers’ comp statute authorizes payment only where the curative treatment is prescribed “in lieu of hospitalization.” Paragraph 1(b) of the same statute lacks the “in lieu of hospitalization” language, and, therefore, benefits are authorized whenever curative treatment is prescribed for any reason.

1)   Courts begin the task of statutory construction by examining the text of the relevant statute in context. citing State v. Gaines. at p. 687.

2)   “Context includes other provisions of the statute, applicable case law interpreting those provisions, and prior legislative changes to the statute.” citing a pre-Gaines Oregon Supreme Court case not named PGE v. B.O.L.I. at p. 687.

3)   Sometimes, use of the definite article “the” indicates a legislative intent to refer to a previous part of the statute, but not always. at p. 690.

4)   If the legislature had intended the two (2) paragraphs to mean exactly the same thing, it is likely that the legislature would have used exactly the same language. Here, the wording of the two (2) paragraphs is substantially different, suggesting that the legislature intended different meanings. at p. 690-91.