Johnston v. James River Corp.
This text of 756 P.2d 696 (Johnston v. James River 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.
Opinion
In this workers’ compensation case, we review under the standards stated in Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co., 90 Or App 200, 752 P2d 312 (1988).
The Workers’ Compensation Board reversed the referee on the compensability issue. When the referee makes adequate findings and conclusions of law which the Board either affirms or specifically adopts, it is not necessary for the Board to reiterate those findings in support of its conclusion. See George v. Richard’s Food Center, 90 Or App 639, 752 P2d 1309 (1988). When the Board reverses, adequate judicial review requires specific findings in the Board’s opinion substantiating its contrary conclusion.
The Board’s opinion refers to some of the evidentiary issues discussed in the referee’s order without making findings sufficient for our review. We cannot tell why the Board reached a conclusion contrary to the referee’s.
Reversed and remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
756 P.2d 696, 91 Or. App. 721, 1988 Ore. App. LEXIS 757, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnston-v-james-river-corp-orctapp-1988.