Stedman v. SAIF Corp.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Stedman v. SAIF Corp.

738 P.2d 1015, 86 Or. App. 359

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJuly 8, 1987

DocketWCB No. 85-07815; CA A39522

StatusPublished

This text of 738 P.2d 1015 (Stedman v. SAIF Corp.) 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

Stedman v. SAIF Corp., 738 P.2d 1015, 86 Or. App. 359 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Claimant seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board that affirmed the referee’s award of 75% permanent disability. He asserts that he is permanently and totally disabled. In 1983, claimant, then age 24, sustained a lumbar strain when he fell off a log while working as a choker setter. He is unable to return to heavy labor, which has been his only type of work experience. He is of limited intellectual capability and can neither read nor write. He has twice been referred to vocational training programs. He failed to report for scheduled appointments and to cooperate in attempts to rehabilitate him. On the basis of the record, we do not agree with claimant that an attempt at vocational rehabilitation would be futile. The Board correctly affirmed the referee, who concluded that claimant has not sustained his burden to prove that he has made reasonable efforts to obtain employment. See ORS 656.206(1), (3).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Claimant seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board that affirmed the referee’s award of 75% permanent disability. He asserts that he is permanently and totally disabled. In 1983, claimant, then age 24, sustained a lumbar strain when he fell off a log while working as a choker setter. He is unable to return to heavy labor, which has been his only type of work experience. He is of limited intellectual capability and can neither read nor write. He has twice been referred to vocational training programs. He failed to report for scheduled appointments and to cooperate in attempts to rehabilitate him. On the basis of the record, we do not agree with claimant that an attempt at vocational rehabilitation would be futile. The Board correctly affirmed the referee, who concluded that claimant has not sustained his burden to prove that he has made reasonable efforts to obtain employment. See ORS 656.206(1), (3).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

738 P.2d 1015, 86 Or. App. 359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stedman-v-saif-corp-orctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack