311 P.2d 458 (Or. 1957), Dodd v. State Indus. Acc. Commission

Citation:311 P.2d 458, 211 Or. 99
Party Name:Lamar E. DODD, Appellant, v. STATE INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION of the State of Oregon, Respondent.
Case Date:May 15, 1957
Court:Supreme Court of Oregon

Page 458

311 P.2d 458 (Or. 1957)

211 Or. 99

Lamar E. DODD, Appellant,

v.

STATE INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION of the State of Oregon,

Respondent.

Supreme Court of Oregon, En Banc

May 15, 1957

[211 Or. 108] Hugh B. Collins, Medford, and Willis, Kyle & Emmons, Albany, for the motion.

LUSK, Justice.

In a petition for rehearing the plaintiff contends that we erroneously held that the aggravation provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Law are not applicable to claims under the Occupational Disease [211 Or. 109] Law. The contention is based on ORS 656.804(1), which reads:

'An occupational disease, as defined in ORS 656.802, is considered an injury for employes of employers who have come under the [sic] ORS 656.002 to 656.590 [the Workmen's Compensation Law], except as otherwise provided in ORS 656.802 to 656.824 [the Occupational Disease Law].'

It is argued that the effect of this section is to incorporate into the Occupational Disease Law all the rights given a workman by the Workmen's Compensation Law unless 'otherwise provided' in the Occupational Disease Law, and that the latter statute contains no provisions inconsistent with the application to it of the aggravation provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Law.

We acknowledge the force of the argument, and are persuaded by it that we should withdraw all language in our former opinion which indicates a contrary view. We leave the question undecided, however, as, in any aspect of the case, our holding that the circuit court was without jurisdiction of the attempted appeal from the decisions of the Workmen's Compensation Commission must be adhered to.

If we assume that the plaintiff had the right to file a claim for aggravation of an occupational disease, and if (as counsel for plaintiff would have us do) we should treat the claim for aggravation filed by the plaintiff as one for aggravation of an occupational disease, rather than of an accidental injury, as he protested that it was, still the plaintiff's effort to invoke the appeal provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Law avails him nothing. For, if the plaintiff had a right to file a claim for...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP