Hutcheson v. Weyerhaeuser Co.

• Decision Date: 02 October 1978
• Docket Number: No. 76-6467,76-6467
• Citation: 36 Or.App. 497,584 P.2d 371,285 Or. 195
• Parties: In the Matter of the Compensation of Earl HUTCHESON, Claimant, Respondent, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, Petitioner. WCB; CA 10190.
• Court: Oregon Court of Appeals

Page 371

584 P.2d 371

36 Or.App. 497

In the Matter of the Compensation of Earl HUTCHESON Claimant, Respondent, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, Petitioner.

WCB No. 76-6467; CA 10190.

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Argued and Submitted July 19, 1978.

Decided Oct. 2, 1978.

Ridgway K. Foley, Jr., Portland, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were Ancer L. Haggerty, Roger A. Luedtke, and Souther, Spaulding, Kinsey, Williamson & Schwabe, Portland.

Robert K. Udziela, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Jan Thomas Baisch, and Pozzi, Wilson, Atchison, Kahn & O'Leary, Portland.

Before Johnson, P. J., and GILLETTE and ROBERTS, JJ.

ROBERTS, Judge.

This is a workers' compensation claim for occupational disease in which the referee denied the claim and the Workers' Compensation Board reversed the referee. We agree with the referee that claimant's condition is not compensable.

Claimant is a 48-year-old male who had been employed by Weyerhaeuser for approximately 10 years. Claimant suffers from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. He was hospitalized in 1967 for recurrent sinusitis and in 1970 for pneumonia, both of which were diagnosed as nonoccupational by his treating physicians. The question is whether his present condition is work-related.

The medical evidence is extensive in that four doctors evaluated claimant over a period of approximately five months.

The referee's detailed opinion and order sets out portions of the doctors' opinions and adds the following:

"To summarize the physicians' findings, the following is noted: All of the physicians indicate that a long history of heavy cigarette smoking is definitely involved as a factor in the COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). With respect to the environmental conditions, Dr. Oelke makes the strongest statement, when he states 'Dust and work environment has definitely been contributing factor' * * * . Drs. Quinn and Berryman talk of a 'probable' relationship based on claimant's history. Dr. Tuhy indicates that the environmental conditions caused only an exacerbation of the pre-existing sinusitis conditions, a temporary flareup. * * * "

The referee based his decision to deny compensation on the following "The statute defines occupational disease as a disease or infection, which not only arises out of and in the scope of the employment, but to which an employee 'is not ordinarily subjected or exposed other than during a period of regular actual employment...