Claimant seeks review of a Workers’ Compensation Board order which reversed the referee and held that he was not entitled to have his injury claim closed and reclassified as disabling. We reverse in part.
Claimant lost a small portion of his little finger in an industrial accident. SAIF accepted the claim as a nondisabling injury. Claimant now believes that the injury was disabling from the outset and asserts that the claim is still viable, because it was never closed, as required by ORS 656.268(3).1 He did not seek a reclassification of the injury from nondisabling to one that has become disabling, as allowed by ORS 656.262(12).2
*544The Board reasoned that, although the claim may always have been disabling and, therefore, may not strictly fall under ORS 656.262(12), that statute provides the only procedure for challenging an insurer’s decision to characterize a claim as nondisabling. We do not agree. ORS 656.262(12) applies to a claim that was initially nondisabling and became disabling. It does not apply to a claim that was disabling from the outset but was misclassified as nondisabling, as alleged here. ORS 656.262(12) has no application to the facts of this case.
The Board held that ORS 656.268(3) does not require a formal closure of a nondisabling claim and that it was sufficient that the notice of acceptance contain all the information required by ORS 656.268(3) to be included in a notice of closure. SAIF concedes that the Board’s reasoning is not completely correct and that an insurer is required to close a nondisabling claim. It asserts, however, that the notice of acceptance met that requirement. We agree with SAIF that it was required to close the claim and that the “Notice of Acceptance” contained each bit of information required to be provided by ORS 656.268(3) — save one. It did not inform claimant that it was a notice of closure. It, therefore, did not trigger his right to seek a determination order under ORS 656.268(3). Because his claim is not closed, claimant’s right to seek a determination order has not yet expired.
Claimant also seeks a penalty and attorney fees for SAIF’s failure to close the claim. He never left work because of his injury, and we know of no basis for the award of a penalty or insurer paid attorney fee. Bono v. SAIF, 298 Or 405, 692 P2d 606 (1984).
Reversed in part and remanded to the Board for claim closure; affirmed as to penalty and attorney fees.