E. DUARTE v. SAIF Corporation

Court of Appeals of Oregon

E. DUARTE v. SAIF Corporation

41 P.3d 458, 179 Or. App. 737, 2002 Ore. App. LEXIS 327

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedFebruary 27, 2002

Docket00-03067; A114242

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 41 P.3d 458 (E. DUARTE v. SAIF Corporation) 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

E. DUARTE v. SAIF Corporation, 41 P.3d 458, 179 Or. App. 737, 2002 Ore. App. LEXIS 327 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

*738 PER CURIAM

Claimant is an emergency medical technician who has worked for employer Mercy Flights, Inc., for seven years. In February 2000, claimant tested positive for tuberculosis (TB) and filed a workers’ compensation claim. Claimant is not aware of having come in contact, either at work or off the job, with anyone who has TB. In support of his claim, however, he introduced evidence from Dr. David Gilmore that it was medically probable that his exposure to TB occurred on the job. When deposed, Gilmore stated that, in his experience, paramedics and hospital workers have a much higher incidence of positive TB tests. He based his opinion that claimant was exposed to TB at work on a statistical analysis and also by ruling out other likely causes.

Employer denied the claim, and the Board upheld the denial. It is unclear from the Board’s opinion whether it ruled as a matter of law that claimant had failed to meet his burden of production or whether it found that he had failed to meet his burden of persuasion. If the Board found that claimant failed to meet his burden of persuasion, we would review the Board’s order for substantial evidence and substantial reason. If the Board found that he failed to meet his burden of production, we would remand its order for reconsideration in light of our opinion in Seeley v. Sisters of Providence, 179 Or App 723, 41 P3d 1093 (2002). Because we cannot determine which course the Board took, we reverse and remand to allow it to clarify and, if appropriate, reconsider its order. See Labor Force v. Frierson, 169 Or App 573, 578, 9 P3d 128 (2000).

Reversed and remanded.

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

*738 PER CURIAM

Claimant is an emergency medical technician who has worked for employer Mercy Flights, Inc., for seven years. In February 2000, claimant tested positive for tuberculosis (TB) and filed a workers’ compensation claim. Claimant is not aware of having come in contact, either at work or off the job, with anyone who has TB. In support of his claim, however, he introduced evidence from Dr. David Gilmore that it was medically probable that his exposure to TB occurred on the job. When deposed, Gilmore stated that, in his experience, paramedics and hospital workers have a much higher incidence of positive TB tests. He based his opinion that claimant was exposed to TB at work on a statistical analysis and also by ruling out other likely causes.

Employer denied the claim, and the Board upheld the denial. It is unclear from the Board’s opinion whether it ruled as a matter of law that claimant had failed to meet his burden of production or whether it found that he had failed to meet his burden of persuasion. If the Board found that claimant failed to meet his burden of persuasion, we would review the Board’s order for substantial evidence and substantial reason. If the Board found that he failed to meet his burden of production, we would remand its order for reconsideration in light of our opinion in Seeley v. Sisters of Providence, 179 Or App 723, 41 P3d 1093 (2002). Because we cannot determine which course the Board took, we reverse and remand to allow it to clarify and, if appropriate, reconsider its order. See Labor Force v. Frierson, 169 Or App 573, 578, 9 P3d 128 (2000).

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 P.3d 458, 179 Or. App. 737, 2002 Ore. App. LEXIS 327, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/e-duarte-v-saif-corporation-orctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack