SAIF Corp. v. Vinson

Court of Appeals of Oregon

SAIF Corp. v. Vinson

866 P.2d 522, 125 Or. App. 684, 1994 Ore. App. LEXIS 15

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJanuary 5, 1994

DocketWCB 91-05363, 91-08114, 91-08115, 91-04982; CA A78727

StatusPublished

This text of 866 P.2d 522 (SAIF Corp. v. Vinson) 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

SAIF Corp. v. Vinson, 866 P.2d 522, 125 Or. App. 684, 1994 Ore. App. LEXIS 15 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

SAIF seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board holding that claimant had suffered a new compensable injury that shifted responsibility for his injury from his first employer, Crawford & Company, to SAIF’s insured, DeJong Products. SAIF argues that the Board erred in failing to apply the major contributing cause standard of ORS 656.005(7)(a)(B) to the responsibility dispute under ORS 656.308(1).

Here, the Board found that claimant’s accidental injury at SAIF’s insured was a material contributing cause of his need for treatment and disability, and, on the basis of that finding, held that responsibility had shifted from the first employer to SAIF’s insured. Under the Supreme Court’s holding in SAIF v. Drews, 318 Or 1, 9, 860 P2d 254 (1993), the first employer remains responsible unless the claimant has suffered a new injury that is the major contributing cause of the need for treatment. ORS 656.005(7)(a)(B); ORS 656.308(1). We reverse the Board’s order and remand for reconsideration in the light of SAIF v. Drews, supra.

Reversed and remanded for reconsideration.

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

PER CURIAM

SAIF seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board holding that claimant had suffered a new compensable injury that shifted responsibility for his injury from his first employer, Crawford & Company, to SAIF’s insured, DeJong Products. SAIF argues that the Board erred in failing to apply the major contributing cause standard of ORS 656.005(7)(a)(B) to the responsibility dispute under ORS 656.308(1).

Here, the Board found that claimant’s accidental injury at SAIF’s insured was a material contributing cause of his need for treatment and disability, and, on the basis of that finding, held that responsibility had shifted from the first employer to SAIF’s insured. Under the Supreme Court’s holding in SAIF v. Drews, 318 Or 1, 9, 860 P2d 254 (1993), the first employer remains responsible unless the claimant has suffered a new injury that is the major contributing cause of the need for treatment. ORS 656.005(7)(a)(B); ORS 656.308(1). We reverse the Board’s order and remand for reconsideration in the light of SAIF v. Drews, supra.

Reversed and remanded for reconsideration.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

866 P.2d 522, 125 Or. App. 684, 1994 Ore. App. LEXIS 15, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saif-corp-v-vinson-orctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack