Barrett v. D & H Drywall

698 P.2d 498, 73 Or. App. 184
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedApril 10, 1985
Docket81-02757; CA A29349
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 698 P.2d 498 (Barrett v. D & H Drywall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Barrett v. D & H Drywall, 698 P.2d 498, 73 Or. App. 184 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).

Opinion

ROSSMAN, J.

Employer and EBI Companies filed a petition for review in the Supreme Court, ORAP 10.05, which we treat as a petition for reconsideration. ORAP 10.10. In our former opinion, 70 Or App 123, 688 P2d 130 (1984), we reversed the Workers’ Compensation Board and held that a claimant’s preexisting medical condition is an element to be considered in determining the extent of unscheduled permanent partial disability, even though the claimant is unable to establish that the underlying condition was worsened or otherwise affected by the compensable industrial injury. We now withdraw our former opinion and affirm.

An award of permanent partial disability is to be rated on the basis of “the permanent loss of earning capacity due to the compensable injury.” ORS 656.214(5).1 In determining loss of earning capacity attributable to an industrial injury, impairments not related to the injury are not considered. This is in contrast with a determination of permanent total disability, which requires the consideration of preexisting disability. ORS 656.206(l)(a).2

The facts as found by the referee, the Board and this court are that claimant’s preexisting degenerative low back condition was not worsened by the compensable industrial injury. In our former opinion, we erroneously held that the [187]*187referee and the Board should have considered the preexisting back condition as an element of claimant’s loss of earning capacity. On reconsideration, we conclude that the Board properly refused to consider the preexisting condition.

On de novo review, we also consider claimant’s second assignment of error that he is permanently and totally disabled and affirm the Board.

Petition for reconsideration allowed; former opinion withdrawn; affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Caren v. Providence Health Sys. Or. (In re Caren)
446 P.3d 67 (Oregon Supreme Court, 2019)
McDermott v. SAIF Corp.
398 P.3d 964 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2017)
Lizotte v. Eastern Oregon Hospital
741 P.2d 929 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1987)
Barrett v. D & H Drywall
740 P.2d 203 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1987)
Saxton v. SAIF Corp.
723 P.2d 355 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1986)
Barrett v. D & H Drywall
715 P.2d 90 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
698 P.2d 498, 73 Or. App. 184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barrett-v-d-h-drywall-orctapp-1985.