Lumbermen's Mutual Insurance v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Lumbermen's Mutual Insurance v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

526 P.2d 589, 18 Or. App. 665, 1974 Ore. App. LEXIS 1021

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedSeptember 23, 1974

DocketNo. 399-857

StatusPublished

This text of 526 P.2d 589 (Lumbermen's Mutual Insurance v. Aetna Casualty & Surety 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

Lumbermen's Mutual Insurance v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 526 P.2d 589, 18 Or. App. 665, 1974 Ore. App. LEXIS 1021 (Or. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The sole issue in this appeal is whether claimant, in a fall on June 14, 1972, suffered a new injury or an aggravation of a previous injury.

If the injury is an aggravation then defendant Aetna Casualty & Surety Company is responsible. If it is a new injury plaintiff Lumbermen’s Mutual Insurance Company is responsible.

The hearing officer, initially, and the Workmen’s Compensation Board and the circuit court, each, in its de novo review, found claimant’s June 14, 1972, fall a new injury. The hearing officer’s determination was based in part on claimant’s testimony, which he found credible. We give weight to the hearing officer’s finding on issues involving credibility. Hannan v. Good Samaritan Hosp., 4 Or App 178, 471 P2d 831, 476 P2d 931 (1970), Sup Ct review denied (1971); Giese v. Safeway Stores, 10 Or App 452, 457, 499 P2d 1364, 501 P2d 982, Sup Ct review denied (1972). No useful purpose would be served in again setting forth the facts.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the determination of the hearing officer, the Board and the circuit court.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The sole issue in this appeal is whether claimant, in a fall on June 14, 1972, suffered a new injury or an aggravation of a previous injury.

If the injury is an aggravation then defendant Aetna Casualty & Surety Company is responsible. If it is a new injury plaintiff Lumbermen’s Mutual Insurance Company is responsible.

The hearing officer, initially, and the Workmen’s Compensation Board and the circuit court, each, in its de novo review, found claimant’s June 14, 1972, fall a new injury. The hearing officer’s determination was based in part on claimant’s testimony, which he found credible. We give weight to the hearing officer’s finding on issues involving credibility. Hannan v. Good Samaritan Hosp., 4 Or App 178, 471 P2d 831, 476 P2d 931 (1970), Sup Ct review denied (1971); Giese v. Safeway Stores, 10 Or App 452, 457, 499 P2d 1364, 501 P2d 982, Sup Ct review denied (1972). No useful purpose would be served in again setting forth the facts.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the determination of the hearing officer, the Board and the circuit court.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

526 P.2d 589, 18 Or. App. 665, 1974 Ore. App. LEXIS 1021, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lumbermens-mutual-insurance-v-aetna-casualty-surety-co-orctapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack