Dodd v. State Indus. Acc. Commission
| Decision Date | 15 May 1957 |
| Citation | 311 P.2d 458,211 Or. 99 |
| Parties | Lamar E. DODD, Appellant, v. STATE INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION of the State of Oregon, Respondent. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Hugh B. Collins, Medford, and Willis, Kyle & Emmons, Albany, for the motion.
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 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 aggravation of an occupational disease, his only appeal from an order of the commission denying such a claim was to a medical board of review (ORS 656.810 to 656.814, both inclusive) and he took no such appeal. If these provisions for appeal to a medical board of review are unconstitutional, as the plaintiff contends, then the entire statute would fall, for, if it were held that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jackson
...been the common law rule of construction in this state. Dodd v. State Industrial Accident Commission, 1957, 211 Or. 99, 112, 310 P.2d 324, 311 P.2d 458, 315 P.2d It is apparent that ORS 167.150 goes far toward exhausting the limits of constitutional power in dealing with obscene and other u......
-
Dilger v. School Dist. 24 CJ
...Seale, et al. v. McKennon, 1959, 215 Or. 562, 336 P.2d 340; Dodd v. State Industrial Accident Commission, 1957, 211 Or. 99, 310 P.2d 324, 311 P.2d 458, 315 P.2d 138; Fullerton v. Lamm, 1946, 177 Or. 655, 163 P.2d 941, 165 P.2d 63; State v. Terwilliger, 1933, 141 Or. 372, 11 P.2d 552, 16 P.2......
-
City of Idanha v. Consumers Power, Inc.
...invalidity of sections 5 and 6 does not affect the remainder of the ordinance. Dodd v. State Ind. Acc. Comm., 211 Or. 99, 310 P.2d 324, 311 P.2d 458, 315 P.2d 138 Defendant challenges the constitutionality of Ordinance No. 6 asserting that it violates the equal protection and due process cl......
-
Seale v. McKennon
...decisions of this court. ORS 174.040; Dodd v. State Industrial Accident Comm., 211 Or. 99, 111, 310 P.2d 324, on petition for rehearing, 311 P.2d 458, 315 P.2d 138; State v. Hunter, 208 Or. 282, 288, 300 P.2d 455; Gilbertson v. Culinary Alliance, 204 Or. 326, 352, 282 P.2d Another matter di......