Shutts v. State Accident Insurance Fund

508 P.2d 456, 13 Or. App. 7, 1973 Ore. App. LEXIS 1096
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedApril 9, 1973
StatusPublished

This text of 508 P.2d 456 (Shutts v. State Accident Insurance Fund) 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
Shutts v. State Accident Insurance Fund, 508 P.2d 456, 13 Or. App. 7, 1973 Ore. App. LEXIS 1096 (Or. Ct. App. 1973).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this workmen’s compensation case claimant seeks an award for compensation for aggravation of a preexisting disability. The hearing officer found that there was an aggravation. The Board found that there was not. The trial judge agreed with the Board. We agree with the trial judge and adopt his opinion, which states:

“The issue before the Court is whether or not there has been, since October 6, 1967, an aggravation of the disability resulting from the compensable injury Claimant suffered in May, 1966. On October 6,1967 it was determined that Claimant, from that accident, had sustained a permanent partial disability equal to' 30% loss of an arm by separation for an unscheduled injury to Claimant’s back.
“I have read the medical reports considered by the Rearing Officer in 1967 and the reports supplied by Claimant to support his claim of aggravation. I have also read the testimony presented at the aggravation hearing. I conclude-that while Claimant’s general condition has deteriorated substantially since 1967, he has failed to establish that the disability resulting from the 1966 accident has been aggravated.'
“In 1967 Claimant’s ‘ problem was localized in .his low back: It was for that condition (low back sprain superimposed upon previously asymptamatic [sic] arthritis) that he was given the 30% award. TTis present complaints relative to the low back area are about as they were five years ago.'
“Presently, however, Claimant has problems with his arms, áll of his joints, his legs, his neck and [9]*9just about every part of Ms body. These problems are attributed to a generalized arthritis and aging, not the 1966 accident.
(C#

Affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
508 P.2d 456, 13 Or. App. 7, 1973 Ore. App. LEXIS 1096, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shutts-v-state-accident-insurance-fund-orctapp-1973.