Important
Disclaimer and Legal Information
Oregon Court Decisions
The following are brief summaries of 2002 Oregon Supreme Court, Oregon Court
of Appeals, and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth District decisions
involving workers' compensation and other issues that are related in some way,
such as cases involving our Constitution and administrative rules. They were
compiled using descriptions provided by Willamette Law Online (Willamette University
College of Law). They are e-mailed
free to subscribers and also available at http://www.willamette.edu/wucl/wlo/oregon/index.htm.
Summaries have been reproduced here, although formatting and clarification changes
have been made. Nothing here can substitute for competent legal representation
from an attorney.
A particular decision may not reflect how Courts will rule in later cases with similar facts though it may fall under precedent, which is a previously decided case that is considered binding in the court where it was issued and in all lower courts in the same jurisdiction.
Willamette Law Online notes that it functions as a notification service, alerting users to legal decisions and trends, and is neither intended to be a comprehensive resource of case law nor a substitute for in-depth legal research.
Most browsers include a "find text" feature, sometimes under "Edit" for locating specific keywords. IWA's Legal Links page can also be used for research.
Oregon Supreme Court
SAIF
Corp. v. Lewis (SC S47997) [Details]
HOLDING: Objective findings of an injury or disease requires only that
an indication is verifiable at some time, or that physical findings or subjective
responses to a physical examination be capable of being reproduced, measured,
or observed.
DeMendoza v. Huffman
(SC S48430) [Details]
HOLDING: The limitation of causes of action for a tort committed by an
agent of a public body against the public body alone, on its face, does not
violate Article I, section 10, 17, or 20, of the Oregon Constitution.
SAIF Corp. v. Kurcin
(SC S46750) [Details]
HOLDING: The
Workers' Compensation Board may uphold an ALJ's decision to grant a continuance
unless it constitutes an abuse of discretion.
Panpat v. Owens-Brockway
Glass Container, Inc. (SC S48419) [Details]
HOLDING: The exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation law does
not bar a civil wrongful death action against an employer when the death resulted
from a personal risk, not a "workplace event."
Schuler v. Beaverton
School Dist. (SC S47320) [Details]
HOLDING: Claimant was properly denied compensation because a work related
injury was not the major contributing cause for the needed treatment.
Storm v. McClung
(S47680) Oregon Supreme Court [Details]
HOLDING: ORS 30.265(3)(a), which immunizes every public body from liability
for any claim for injury or death of any person that is covered by workers'
compensation law, does not violate the Oregon Constitution.
Schaff v. Ray's Land
& Sea Food Co., Inc. (S48360) [Details]
HOLDING: Salesman was an independent contractor rather than defendant's
employee; therefore, defendant could not be vicariously liable for the salesman's
allegedly negligent conduct.
Multifoods Specialty
Distribution v. McAtee (S48360) [Details]
HOLDING: Employer can deny claim when the injury is not the major contributing
cause for continued treatment.
Rubalcaba v. Nagaki
Farms, Inc. (SC S48217) [Details]
HOLDING: A truck driver, who owns his own truck and is injured on his
employer's farm, is a "worker" within the meaning of ORS 656.005(30).
Oregon Court of Appeals
Davis v. SAIF (A114622)
[Details]
HELD: An injured worker's substantive entitlement to aggravation benefits
is dependent on the relationship of the worsened condition to the original injury.
Lecangdam v. SAIF Corp.
(CA A115535) [Details]
HELD: Claimant must show that his work exposure was the major contributing
cause of his overall hearing loss.
Kaeo v. SAIF Corp.
Deits, C. J. (CA A114015) [Details]
HELD: Nothing in the workers' compensation statutes requires that, when
an accepted condition results in a permanent disability award, an insurer cannot
issue a denial of the entire combined condition.
Klutsenbeker v. Jackson
County (CA A112885) [Details]
HELD: Recovery is allowed when the underlying condition of an accepted
symptom is discovered after acceptance if the underlying condition is the cause
of the accepted symptom.
Evans v. Multnomah
County Sheriff's Office (A112917) [Details]
HELD: In determining whether a person can perform the essential functions
of the position for purposes of reasonable accommodations, the relevant position
is not the general classification of the job but the specific assignments requested.
Machuca-Ramirez v.
Zephyr Engineering, Inc. (CA A113765) [Details]
HELD: There is no statutory limitation on an employer's ability to challenge
an order of an ALJ. Employer's notice of closure has no preclusive effect once
it has been changed by the ARU. When an order on reconsideration makes a change
in an award, the proper focus is not on the employer's initial award but on
the propriety of the change of the order on reconsideration made in the claimant's
award.
Day v. Advanced M&D
Sales, Inc. (CA A112790) [Details]
HELD: A plaintiff who accepts workers' compensation benefits may be equitably
estopped from pursuing a civil claim.
Talley v. BCI Coca
Cola Bottling (A113826) [Details]
HELD: The processing of a claim reopened for vocational assistance is
a matter concerning the claim over which the board's Hearings Division has jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the board erred in dismissing claimant's request for hearing from
the notice of closure for lack of jurisdiction.
Sosnoski v. SAIF Corp.
(CA A112357) [Details]
HELD: The relevant inquiry is whether the activity at the time of injury
was reasonably related to the worker's travel status. That, in turn, depends
on whether the activity at the time of injury was an activity that the employer
reasonably could anticipate or expect of the traveling employee. Here, claimant's
activity at the time of injury, driving a rental car to the hotel from a reasonable
distance and not under the influence of intoxicants, was an activity that employer
reasonably could expect of claimant.
SAIF Corp. v. Ricker
(CA A111064) [Details]
HELD: The
Board erred in failing to consider whether an earlier order issued by a different
administrative law judge and upholding employer's denial of the compensability
of claimant's combined condition preclusively determined that claimant was not
substantively entitled to benefits for temporary disability after effective
date of the denial.
Hiner v. Crawford Health
& Rehabilitation (A113029) [Details]
HELD: The Board's interpretation is too narrow and would exclude from coverage
the vast number of new medical conditions that are compensable but, due to some
technical snare, have not resulted in a reopening of the original claim for
processing. A new medical condition claim was "existing" if, on the
effective date of the Act, it was perfected under the terms of ORS 656.262(7)
and was as yet unprocessed or was pending in litigation.
Sisters of Providence
v. McGuire (CA A113375) [Details]
HELD: Employer failed to show that it qualified for the exception allowing
it to use CME reports in determining PPD. Medical arbiter's conclusion that
claimant's impairment was consistent with the accepted condition, and the fact
that no legally available medical findings with alternate cause, establishes
connection between injury and impairment.
SAIF v. Jensen (CA
A113528) [Details]
HELD: ORS 656.245 describes compensable medical services, without regard
to whether claim has been accepted at the time of service. The meanings of ORS
656.245(2)(b)(A) and 656.005(12)(b) are plain. Chiropractor who is not a member
can be an attending physician only for 30 days from date of first treatment
or 12 visits, whichever first occurs.
Getz v. Wonder Bur
(CA A114152) [Details]
HELD: In this case, the second injury is an injury arising out of and
in the course of employment and, therefore, compensable. Note: Involves a "physical
capacity evaluation" that claimant was ordered to undergo by his treating
physician.
Vsetecka v. Safeway
Stores, Inc. (CA A113353) [Details]
HELD: Where the statute requires notice of "when and where and how"
an injury occurred, claimant must provide information sufficient to satisfy
all three requirements. The Board properly concluded that the log book entry
indicates when and where, but not how, the injury was incurred.
Lovelace v. Bd. of Parole
and Post-Prison Supervision. (CA A109609) [Details]
HELD: Although ORS 183.400(1) provides that "any person" may
seek judicial review of an administrative rule, a claim is not justiciable if
a decision of this court would have no practical effect on petitioner's rights.
Petitioner has demonstrated that this court's decision would have a practical
effect on his right to subsequently file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Motion to dismiss denied as moot; amended motion to dismiss denied.
Gonzalez v. SAIF Corp.
(CA A114224) [Details]
HELD: OAR 436-035-0010(2) specifically limits the criteria that can be
considered in rating scheduled losses to, among other things, the loss itself,
and when read with OAR 436-035-0010(5), does not allow for consideration of
the factors used by the treating physician. The Board did not err in its interpretation
of OAR 436-035-0010(5).
Kenimer v. SAIF Corp.
(CA A113239) [Details]
HELD: The
Board must sufficiently explain its reasoning. Dr. James's opinion appears to
support a conclusion contrary to the Board's. The court will not read between
the lines to discern the Board's rationale. The Board's finding was not supported
by substantial evidence.
Rasmussen v. SAIF. (CA
A112064) [Details]
HELD: SAIF's response was not a "clarification" for purposes
of ORS 656.262(6)(d) (1999) because it did nothing to clarify anything about
its initial notice of acceptance.
Hanson v. Dan's Steel
Co. (CA A111945) [Details]
HELD: Substantial evidence supports the Board's finding. Danboise does
not require an inference of causation. Rather, Danboise discusses when an inference
of causation is permissible. Whether or not the Board makes an inference of
causation, the overriding question for this court is whether substantial evidence
supports the Board's decision.
Buss v. SAIF. (CA
A116019) [Details]
HELD: Because the court is unable to determine whether the Board's consideration
of claimant's alleged entitlement to additional PPD was based on an erroneous
legal premise, it reverses and remands to the Board for clarification on reconsideration.
Longview Inspection
v. Snyder (A115166) [Details]
HELD: When a decision is based on information not held by the employer
it is invalid because a combined condition cannot be denied until it has been
accepted.
Reynolds v. Hydro Tech
Inc. (A111078) [Details]
HELD: Because claimant's temporary compensation had not been awarded
by notice of closure, administrative or judicial determination, or other affirmative
determination of entitlement, ORS 656.382(2) does not provide for insurer-paid
attorney fees for services provided at the hearing level.
Allen v. Paula Ins.
(CA A112904) [Details]
HELD: In interpreting ORS 656.226, effect is given to every word to ascertain
what the legislature intended. This statute clearly limits "children"
that qualify for survivor's benefits to those "living as a result of that
relation" between two unmarried adults. A child adopted by one adult in
the relationship but not the other does not qualify under the statute.
Skyline/Homette Corp.
v. Boling (CA A115406) [Details]
HELD: Substantial evidence supports the Board's determination that claimant's
conditions and limitations were ongoing and predated the initial date of closure.
Manley v. SAIF (CA
A110793) [Details]
HELD: An insurer cannot close and rate a claim until both the original
accepted condition and any direct medical sequelae are medically stationary.
Logsdon v. SAIF Corp.
(CA A109321) {Details]
HELD: Claimant was not entitled to an oral hearing for the purpose of
cross-examining physicians who provided medical opinions on reconsideration
concerning his medically stationary date.
Sunrise Electric, Inc.
v. Ramirez (CA A112564) [Details]
HELD: For the purpose of assigning responsibility under the last injurious
exposure rule, the triggering date is the date a claimant first seeks or receives
medical treatment, whichever occurs first. Under Tapp, the only question
in determining the triggering date is one of fact--when did the claimant first
seek or receive treatment for the compensable condition. Because it is unclear
whether the board correctly followed the holding in Tapp, we reverse and remand
the Board's order to permit it to clarify the basis for its decision.
Trujillo v. Pacific
Safety Supply (CA A99410) [Details]
HELD: Claimant had no right to testify at his hearing concerning his
base functional capacity, but because the Workers' Compensation Board's order
included inconsistent findings concerning the rating of claimant's base functional
capacity, the case is reversed and remanded for reconsideration.
Weyerhaeuser v. Hagebush
(CA A115405) [Details]
HELD: (1) There was substantial evidence in the record that claimant
was treated for right-side carpal tunnel syndrome while employed by petitioner;
(2) the board erred in failing to address petitioner's argument that the ALJ
erroneously concluded that there was no evidence of a worsening of claimant's
injury while working for the later employer.
Christman v. SAIF
(A109424) [Details]
HELD: The Board's review is de novo and it has broad discretion to consider
arguments raised for the first time on appeal. The last injurious exposure rule
is not intended to transfer liability from an employer whose employment caused
a disability to a later employer whose employment did not. The Board's order
failed to explain its reasons for relying on medical opinions that were based
on a potentially inaccurate assumption.
SAIF v. Custer (A110775)
[Details]
HELD: Substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that SAIF accepted
claimant's conditions without reservation. The Workers' Compensation Act is
a complete statement of the parties' rights and obligations, and they are sui
generis. SAIF wanted the benefit of accepting a combined condition without having
to follow the statutory requirements that accompany combined conditions. There
is no authority to support SAIF's position.
SAIF v. Webb (A110994)
[Details]
HELD: When the evidence
establishes that the major contributing cause of a consequential condition is
a previously accepted injury, resorting to the judicially created Kearns presumption
is unnecessary. Employers with an accepted claim are liable for a consequential
condition if the accepted injury is the major contributing cause.
Sound Elevator v. Zwingraf
(A111284) [Details]
HELD: Employer's denial of claimant's "current condition and need
for treatment" was broad enough to encompass the medial meniscus condition
his physician had noted on forms sent to employer, even though claimant had
made no express claim for a new medical condition or for acceptance of an omitted
condition. Claimant therefore had a right to request a hearing on the denial
of that condition.
Wallowa County v. Fordice
(A113714) [Details]
HELD: Military service is "employment" for purposes of the
workers' compensation statutes.
Express Services, Inc.
v. Conradson (CA A110740) [Details]
HELD: Based on the medical arbiter's opinion, there was substantial evidence
that a reasonable expectation of permanent injury developed within one year
of the date of injury. However, the board erred in awarding attorney fees under
ORS 656.382(2).
Beaver v. The Mill Resort
and Casino (CA A110473) [Details]
HELD: The Board's determination that claimant's injury did not fall within
the "greater hazard" exception was supported by both substantial reasoning
and substantial evidence.
Halsey Shedd RFPD v.
Leopard (CA A108543) [Details]
HELD: The risk of claimant's injury was not a risk connected with the
nature of claimant's work as a volunteer fireman, nor was it a risk to which
his work environment exposed him, and, thus, his injury did not "arise
out of" employment. The board erred in concluding otherwise.
Icenhower v. SAIF Corp.
(CA A110770) [Details]
HELD: Under ORS 656.262(11)(a), once a dispute is properly before the
Hearings Division, any subsequent narrowing of the issues to just the penalty
issue does not divest the Hearings Division of jurisdiction over the dispute.
Norstadt v. Liberty
Northwest Ins. Corp. (CA A111706) [Details]
HELD: The 1994 version of ORS 656.277(1) controls the timeliness of a
request for reclassification of a claim made after the statute's effective date.
It does not matter that claimant's right to seek reclassification may have expired
under the previous version of the statute.
Seeley v. Sisters of
Providence (CA A110771) [Details]
HELD: ORS 656.266 prohibits a claimant from proving that work caused
his or her condition solely by disproving other potential causes. Because the
Board ruled that claimant had not met her burden of production, it did not consider
whether she had met her burden of persuasion.
Ortman v. Laidlaw Transit
(CA A108891) [Details]
HELD: (1) There was evidence before the Board that other, work-related
factors may have been a cause of claimant's injury and the Board discussed those
factors. There is no indication that the Board failed to consider all the relevant
factors based on the physician's opinion that alcohol was the major contributing
cause of claimant's injury. (2) Despite an inaccuracy in the physician's opinion,
the Board could reasonably rely on the physician's opinion in support of its
determination that claimant's alcohol consumption was the major contributing
cause of her fall.
BCI Coca Cola Bottling
Co. v. Adamson (CA A112732) [Details]
HELD: Assuming, without deciding, that the Board erred in holding that
employer's payment of benefits for PPD was untimely, any error was harmless
in light of the Board's ultimate determination reversing the ALJ's assessment
of a penalty and attorney fees.
Gilbert v. Cavenham
Forest Industries Division (CA A112661) [Details]
HELD: Employer is not precluded from contesting compensability. The prior
acceptance did not include arachnoiditis, nor was compensability actually litigated
in any prior proceeding. On the merits, substantial evidence supports the Board's
finding that the condition is not related to claimant's compensable injury.
Alanis v. Barrett Business
Services (CA A105513) [Details]
HELD: Undocumented worker who suffered a compensable injury is entitled
to benefits based on the difference between the pre-injury wage and the wage
of the modified job.
Everett v. SAIF
(CA A111969) [Details]
HELD: Claimant failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by not presenting
any evidence to DCBS to allow that agency to determine if claimant's position
was correct. Because claimant effectively bypassed the proceeding before DCBS,
the Board correctly determined that he could not introduce that evidence, for
the first time, at the hearing before the ALJ.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth District
Martinez
v. Signature Seafoods Inc. (01-35768) [Details]
HELD: Because the barge was seaworthy, was navigable in the open sea,
and was not permanently moored it met the definition of vessel in navigation
under the Jones Act.
EEOC v.
UPS (01-15410) [Details]
HELD: For a monocular individual to show that his impairment is a substantial
limitation on the major life activity of seeing, the impairment must prevent
or severely restrict use of eyesight as compared with those who are unimpaired
under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Stevedoring Services
of America v. OWCP (01-70354) [Details]
HELD: The
"last employer doctrine" does not mean that there can be just one
"last employer," and thus, only one employer liable while an equally
liable employer escapes liability.
State of Arizona v.
Bliemeister (01-16058) [Details]
HELD: The State waived any sovereign immunity that might have been available
when the State consented to suit in a federal bankruptcy court proceeding without
raising it as an affirmative defense.
|
|
www.injuredworker.org
Injured Workers' Alliance Web site design © 2002
Original photos, logos, and other content copyrighted, unless otherwise
noted.