Lucas v. Clark

756 P.2d 57, 91 Or. App. 522
Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided June 15, 1988·No. WCB 85-08631; CA A45786·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Claimant seeks review of a Workers’ Compensation Board order that affirmed the referee and upheld the denial of his aggravation claim for a back condition. We review for substantial evidence. ORS 656.298(6); ORS 183.482(7) and (8). Because neither the Board order nor the referee’s opinion and order which it affirmed are adequate for judicial review, see Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co., 90 Or App 200, 752 P2d 312 (1988), we remand to the Board for reconsideration. On remand, the Board also should reconsider this case in the light of Gwynn v. SAIF, 304 Or 345, 745 P2d 775 (1987), on remand 91 Or App 84, 754 P2d 586 (1988), and International Paper Co. v. Turner, 304 Or 354, 745 P2d 780 (1987), on remand 91 Or App 91, 754 P2d 589 (1988).

Remanded for reconsideration.

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

Lucas v. Clark, 756 P.2d 57, 91 Or. App. 522 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).

756 P.2d 57 (Lucas v. Clark) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gwynn v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp.
754 P.2d 586 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1988)
Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co.
752 P.2d 312 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1988)
Gwynn v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp.
745 P.2d 775 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1987)
International Paper Co. v. Turner
745 P.2d 780 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1987)
International Paper Co. v. Turner
754 P.2d 589 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1988)