Compensation of Hall, Matter of
| Decision Date | 21 January 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-08467,80-08467 |
| Citation | 60 Or.App. 750,654 P.2d 1167 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the COMPENSATION OF Phyllis HALL, Claimant. The HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Phyllis HALL, Respondent. ; CA A22454. |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Deborah S. MacMillan, Portland, argued the cause for petitioner. With her on the brief were Frank A. Moscato and Moscato & Meyers, Portland.
Richard Roll, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief was Peter O. Hansen, Portland.
Before GILLETTE, P.J., and WARDEN and YOUNG, JJ.
The question presented in this workers' compensation case is the extent of claimant's disability. The referee and the Workers' Compensation Board found claimant to be permanently and totally disabled as the result of an on-the-job injury to her lower back. The insurer appeals, and we modify the award.
Claimant was injured in October, 1975, when she tripped over the foot of a co-worker and fell. She was treated by several doctors. She has continued to have significant pain in her back and both legs, along with numbness and tingling in her legs. She returned to her former employment on an assembly line on a part-time basis in 1976, but has not worked since September, 1977. She testified that she is unable to sit or stand for prolonged periods and that she has difficulty walking any distance, driving and climbing stairs. She testified that she has to lie down several times a day to obtain relief from the pain she experiences.
The medical evidence indicates that claimant was treated with pain medication, a back brace and physical therapy after her injury. Several myelograms were performed over the period of her treatment, but all returned basically normal results, given her history of back surgery. 1 In October, 1977, Dr. Berkeley, who had become claimant's treating physician, performed exploratory surgery and removed excessive scar tissue entrapping the left nerve root and theca at the L4-5 level. The post-operative report indicates that claimant will continue to have radicular problems, irrespective of treatment, "due to her peculiar tendency in forming this very dense scar tissue in her spinal canal." He concluded:
"In view of the clinical and surgical findings, I do not think that this lady will be able to assume work in the future."
He has continued to be of the opinion that claimant is totally disabled.
The other doctors who have examined claimant, however, have found her to be only moderately disabled and concluded that she could work, with limitations on prolonged sitting or standing and on bending and lifting. Those doctors include Dr. Mason, who performed claimant's 1973 surgery and treated claimant for a time following that injury, and two separate teams of three doctors each from Orthopedic Consultants. In addition, Dr. Geist, who also treated claimant for a time, recommended that she be retrained for office work. Dr. Keizer, who apparently examined claimant on only one occasion, concluded that she could do light work.
Although Dr. Berkeley is claimant's treating physician, we are not persuaded by his opinion that claimant is totally disabled, in light of the conclusions reached by all of the other doctors who have examined her. We conclude that the medical evidence by itself does not establish that claimant is permanently and totally disabled.
Claimant contends, then, that we should find her totally disabled because of her physical condition plus the non-medical factors. See Wilson v. Weyerhaeuser, 30 Or.App. 403, 567 P.2d 567 (1977). Claimant, who is now 57 years old, points to her age, the facts that she has only a 10th grade education and no special job skills, and that her physical condition limits her ability to sit or stand for extended periods, bend, twist, lift, climb stairs or drive a car for any distance. She argues that this, when considered with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Linen Service v. McGuinn
...employment within his physical limitations. See, e.g., Mayer v. Erickson Decorators, 372 N.W.2d 729 (Minn.1985); In re Compensation of Hall, 60 Or.App. 750, 654 P.2d 1167 (1982), review denied, Home Ins. Co. v. Hall, 294 Or. 536, 660 P.2d 682 (1983); 2 A. Larson, The Law of Workmen's Compen......
-
Lee v. Freightliner Corp.
...Fitzpatrick v. Freightliner, 62 Or.App. 762, 662 P.2d 8, rev. den. 295 Or. 297, 668 P.2d 381 (1983), with Home Insurance Co. v. Hall, 60 Or.App. 750, 654 P.2d 1167 (1982), rev. den. 294 Or. 536, 660 P.2d 682 (1983). We turn to whether employer proved that claimant failed to mitigate the ext......
-
Allison v. State Acc. Ins. Fund Corp.
...670 P.2d 207 ... 65 Or.App. 134 ... In the Matter of the Compensation of James R. Allison, Sr., ... James R. ALLISON, Sr., Petitioner, ... STATE ... ORS 656.206(3); 1 see Home Ins. Co. v. Hall, 60 Or.App. 750, 654 P.2d 1167 ... (1982), rev. den. 294 Or. 536, 660 P.2d 682 (1983); Butcher ... ...
-
Phillips v. Liberty Mut.
...615 P.2d 1134, rev. den. 290 Or. 157 (1980). On its facts, this case cannot be distinguished from our decisions in Home Ins. Co. v. Hall, 60 Or.App. 750, 654 P.2d 1167 (1982), rev. den. 294 Or. 536 (1983); and Willamette Poultry Co. v. Wilson, 60 Or.App. 755, 654 P.2d 1154 (1982), rev. den.......