Stevenson v. Blue Cross of Oregon
Decision Date | 24 July 1991 |
Citation | 108 Or.App. 247,814 P.2d 185 |
Parties | In the Matter of the Compensation of Linda A. Stevenson, Claimant. Linda A. STEVENSON, Petitioner, v. BLUE CROSS OF OREGON and Saif Corporation, Respondents. 87-07020, 86-15450; CA A63987. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Glen S. Shearer, Portland, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Schouboe, Marvin & Furniss, Portland.
David L. Runner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen., and Virginia L. Linder, Sol. Gen., Salem.
Before RICHARDSON, P.J., and NEWMAN and DEITS, JJ.
Claimant petitions for judicial review of a Workers' Compensation Board order that held that her tendonitis is not compensable and that denied her penalties and attorney fees on that claim. We affirm.
The Board found:
The Board affirmed the portion of the referee's order that denied compensation for the tendonitis. It also adopted the portion of the referee's opinion dealing with claimant's psychological condition. The referee wrote:
Claimant contends that she presented a "prima facie case" for compensability of the tendonitis. She also appears to argue that, even without medical evidence, causation of her condition is so clear that it should be compensable as a matter of law. We review the Board's findings for substantial evidence in the whole record to support them. ORS 656.298(6); ORS 183.482(7), (8); see Garcia v. Boise Cascade Corp., 309 Or. 292, 296, 787 P.2d 884 (1990).
The Board found the opinions of Drs. Winslow and Won ambiguous and conclusory. Winslow originally diagnosed tendonitis and cellulitis and characterized both conditions as job related. He later concurred in the opinion of Dr. Button, a hand and arm specialist, that claimant's hand and arm complaints were functional and that she may never have had tendonitis. Winslow never explained how claimant's work caused the tendonitis and did not say that her work was the major contributing cause of the condition.
Won did not examine ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Saif Corp. v. Siegrist (In re Comp. of Siegrist)
...of the issue.6 But we will not review the merits of that issue when the board did not decide it. See Stevenson v. Blue Cross of Oregon , 108 Or. App. 247, 252, 814 P.2d 185 (1991). We also reject insurer’s request for plain-error review. Even assuming that we could apply that doctrine in th......
-
Compensation of Tull, Matter of
...dissent's analysis is wrong. It relies on Johnson v. Spectra Physics, 303 Or. 49, 733 P.2d 1367 (1987), Stevenson v. Blue Cross of Oregon, 108 Or.App. 247, 251, 814 P.2d 185 (1991), and EBI Ins. Co. v. CNA Insurance, 95 Or.App. 448, 451, 769 P.2d 789 (1989), in support of its In Johnson, th......
-
Rouse v. FMC Corp. Marine-Rail
...Board found that employer had accepted claimant's "psychiatric problems." That is a finding of fact, see Stevenson v. Blue Cross of Oregon, 108 Or.App. 247, 250, 814 P.2d 185 (1991), and employer does not challenge We conclude that, like the "sore back" in Piwowar, employer's acceptance of ......
-
Vogel v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp.
...At that time, the Board had the discretion to consider a remand to DIF, but it was not required to do so. Stevenson v. Blue Cross of Oregon, 108 Or.App. 247, 252, 814 P.2d 185 (1991); Larsen v. Taylor & Company, 56 Or.App. 404, 406 n 1, 642 P.2d 317 Affirmed. 1 DIF is now known as the Depar......