Stone Container of NV v. Tedrow

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Stone Container of NV v. Tedrow

853 P.2d 1329, 121 Or. App. 95, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 943

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJune 9, 1993

DocketWCB 91-09918; CA A76702

StatusPublished

This text of 853 P.2d 1329 (Stone Container of NV v. Tedrow) 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

Stone Container of NV v. Tedrow, 853 P.2d 1329, 121 Or. App. 95, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 943 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Employer seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board that requires it to pay for medical treatment of claimant’s low back condition. We affirm.

The Board found that the condition, a herniated disc at L5-S1, for which claimant sought medical treatment, was a different condition from a back condition that employer had denied in 1990. There is substantial evidence to support that finding, and the Board did not err by holding that claim compensable.

The Board ordered that employer pay for medical treatment beginning on the date of the denial. Although it made no findings about when claimant’s need for treatment relating to the L5-S1 condition began, we read the Board’s order as requiring payment only for medical treatment related to the changed condition.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Employer seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board that requires it to pay for medical treatment of claimant’s low back condition. We affirm.

The Board found that the condition, a herniated disc at L5-S1, for which claimant sought medical treatment, was a different condition from a back condition that employer had denied in 1990. There is substantial evidence to support that finding, and the Board did not err by holding that claim compensable.

The Board ordered that employer pay for medical treatment beginning on the date of the denial. Although it made no findings about when claimant’s need for treatment relating to the L5-S1 condition began, we read the Board’s order as requiring payment only for medical treatment related to the changed condition.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

853 P.2d 1329, 121 Or. App. 95, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 943, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stone-container-of-nv-v-tedrow-orctapp-1993.