Heiden v. Don Pollock Investments

762 P.2d 346, 93 Or. App. 425
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedOctober 12, 1988
DocketWCB 86-01669; CA A45336
StatusPublished

This text of 762 P.2d 346 (Heiden v. Don Pollock Investments) 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
Heiden v. Don Pollock Investments, 762 P.2d 346, 93 Or. App. 425 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Claimant seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board that reduced the permanent partial disability awarded by the referee. The petition for review was filed after July 20,1987, and our review is as specified in ORS 656.298. See Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co., 90 Or App 200, 752 P2d 312 (1988).

The Board’s order is insufficient for effective review. It contains no explanation or reasoning about why the referee’s decision was altered. The order does not satisfy the standards for review set out in Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co., supra.

Remanded for reconsideration.

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

Related

Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co.
752 P.2d 312 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
762 P.2d 346, 93 Or. App. 425, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heiden-v-don-pollock-investments-orctapp-1988.