Horton v. Mrs. Smith's Pie Co.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Horton v. Mrs. Smith's Pie Co.

590 P.2d 791, 38 Or. App. 575, 1979 Ore. App. LEXIS 2483

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedFebruary 20, 1979

DocketWCB 76-6988, CA 11473

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 590 P.2d 791 (Horton v. Mrs. Smith's Pie Co.) 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

Horton v. Mrs. Smith's Pie Co., 590 P.2d 791, 38 Or. App. 575, 1979 Ore. App. LEXIS 2483 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

GILLETTE, J.

In this Workers’ Compensation case, the claimant appeals the Workers’ Compensation Board’s reduction to 15% unscheduled permanent disability of a referee’s order granting 50% disability. We reverse and reinstate the referee’s award.

Recitation of the facts is not warranted. See Hoag v. Duraflake, 37 Or App 103, 585 P2d 1149 (1978). The case is a factual one, hinging almost entirely on the credibility of claimant. If the claimant’s testimony is to be believed, she is substantially disabled. The referee specifically found her to be credible. The Board found otherwise. Examining the evidence relied upon by the Board, we find it no more persuasive than the claimant’s testimony. This is a classic situation justifying deference to him who saw the witness. See Steiner v. SAIF, 34 Or App 317, 578 P2d 497 (1978). We so defer.

Reversed and remanded with instructions to reinstate the referee’s order.

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

GILLETTE, J.

In this Workers’ Compensation case, the claimant appeals the Workers’ Compensation Board’s reduction to 15% unscheduled permanent disability of a referee’s order granting 50% disability. We reverse and reinstate the referee’s award.

Recitation of the facts is not warranted. See Hoag v. Duraflake, 37 Or App 103, 585 P2d 1149 (1978). The case is a factual one, hinging almost entirely on the credibility of claimant. If the claimant’s testimony is to be believed, she is substantially disabled. The referee specifically found her to be credible. The Board found otherwise. Examining the evidence relied upon by the Board, we find it no more persuasive than the claimant’s testimony. This is a classic situation justifying deference to him who saw the witness. See Steiner v. SAIF, 34 Or App 317, 578 P2d 497 (1978). We so defer.

Reversed and remanded with instructions to reinstate the referee’s order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

590 P.2d 791, 38 Or. App. 575, 1979 Ore. App. LEXIS 2483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horton-v-mrs-smiths-pie-co-orctapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack