Roseburg Forest Products v. Rowe

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Roseburg Forest Products v. Rowe

865 P.2d 1329, 125 Or. App. 580, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 2250

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedDecember 29, 1993

DocketWCB 91-08657; CA A80060

StatusPublished

This text of 865 P.2d 1329 (Roseburg Forest Products v. Rowe) 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

Roseburg Forest Products v. Rowe, 865 P.2d 1329, 125 Or. App. 580, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 2250 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

In this workers’ compensation case, claimant made a claim for an occupational disease, which she described as “[wjorking over number of year [sic], numbness, tingling, ect [sic] on putty machine for 17 years. ’ ’ She described the nature of the disease as “carpel [sic] tunnel.” The referee concluded that the condition was not compensable. On review, the Board reversed, holding that claimant’s “upper extremity” condition was compensable. The Board’s order is not entirely clear, because it finds an upper extremities condition compensable, when the claim was for carpal tunnel syndrome. Regardless of how the Board characterized the condition, there is no dispute that there is substantial evidence to support a finding that the condition for which claimant sought compensation, carpal tunnel syndrome, was caused in major part by claimant’s employment. We understand the Board’s order to decide no more than that claimant’s carpal tunnel syndrome is compensable. Accordingly, we affirm.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

In this workers’ compensation case, claimant made a claim for an occupational disease, which she described as “[wjorking over number of year [sic], numbness, tingling, ect [sic] on putty machine for 17 years. ’ ’ She described the nature of the disease as “carpel [sic] tunnel.” The referee concluded that the condition was not compensable. On review, the Board reversed, holding that claimant’s “upper extremity” condition was compensable. The Board’s order is not entirely clear, because it finds an upper extremities condition compensable, when the claim was for carpal tunnel syndrome. Regardless of how the Board characterized the condition, there is no dispute that there is substantial evidence to support a finding that the condition for which claimant sought compensation, carpal tunnel syndrome, was caused in major part by claimant’s employment. We understand the Board’s order to decide no more than that claimant’s carpal tunnel syndrome is compensable. Accordingly, we affirm.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

865 P.2d 1329, 125 Or. App. 580, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 2250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roseburg-forest-products-v-rowe-orctapp-1993.