Johnson v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Johnson v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp.

639 P.2d 137, 55 Or. App. 638

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedAugust 24, 1982

DocketNo. 79-7925, CA A20259

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 639 P.2d 137 (Johnson v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp.) 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

Johnson v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp., 639 P.2d 137, 55 Or. App. 638 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

ROBERTS, J.

We have granted reconsideration in this case to respond to petitioner’s contention that we applied the wrong standard of proof in her workers’ compensation claim. Petitioner points to language in the next-to-last paragraph of the opinion in which we stated that the two doctors who testified “* * * could not say with any medical certainty that her work caused any acceleration or worsening of the underlying condition.” Petitioner maintains that “certainty” is not required. Petitioner is correct. We stated clearly, earlier in the opinion, that we affirmed the Board’s finding that claimant had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that her work had caused a worsening of her underlying disease. 54 Or App at 623. See also, Hutcheson v. Weyerhaeuser, 288 Or 51, 602 P2d 268 (1979). Our paraphrasing of the doctors’ testimony did not change the quantum of proof. However, because the wording of our former opinion may be misleading, the paragraph at issue is amended to read:

“The two doctors who testified by deposition as to claimant’s condition stated clearly and repeatedly, in response to precise questioning by claimant’s attorney, that, although claimant’s symptoms were increased, they could not say that her work caused any acceleration or worsening of the underlying condition. The Board’s denial was therefore correct.”

Petition for reconsideration granted; former opinion modified and adhered to.

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

ROBERTS, J.

We have granted reconsideration in this case to respond to petitioner’s contention that we applied the wrong standard of proof in her workers’ compensation claim. Petitioner points to language in the next-to-last paragraph of the opinion in which we stated that the two doctors who testified “* * * could not say with any medical certainty that her work caused any acceleration or worsening of the underlying condition.” Petitioner maintains that “certainty” is not required. Petitioner is correct. We stated clearly, earlier in the opinion, that we affirmed the Board’s finding that claimant had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that her work had caused a worsening of her underlying disease. 54 Or App at 623. See also, Hutcheson v. Weyerhaeuser, 288 Or 51, 602 P2d 268 (1979). Our paraphrasing of the doctors’ testimony did not change the quantum of proof. However, because the wording of our former opinion may be misleading, the paragraph at issue is amended to read:

“The two doctors who testified by deposition as to claimant’s condition stated clearly and repeatedly, in response to precise questioning by claimant’s attorney, that, although claimant’s symptoms were increased, they could not say that her work caused any acceleration or worsening of the underlying condition. The Board’s denial was therefore correct.”

Petition for reconsideration granted; former opinion modified and adhered to.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

639 P.2d 137, 55 Or. App. 638, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-state-accident-insurance-fund-corp-orctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack