Trujillo v. Pacific Safety Supply
This text of 978 P.2d 1037 (Trujillo v. Pacific Safety Supply) 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.
Opinion
Claimant seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board that awarded him 21 percent unscheduled permanent disability. Claimant makes two assignments of error. First, he argues that the procedure set forth in ORS 656.283(7) violates his right to due process under the Fourteen Amendment to the United States Constitution by not allowing him to testify at the hearing. This argument was addressed and rejected in Koskela v. Willamette Industries, 159 Or App 229, 978 P2d 1018 (1999). Second, he argues that the Board’s findings regarding his base functional capacity are not consistent. We affirm on the first assignment of error, and reverse and remand on the second.
Claimant injured his neck, shoulders and chest pulling a piece of plywood. Claimant’s physician diagnosed cervical, thoracic, right scapula and right trapezius strains. After claimant became medically stationary, SAIF issued a notice of closure, awarding claimant 16 percent unscheduled disability. The worksheet attached to the notice indicated that claimant’s base functional capacity (BFC) was light and that his residual functional capacity (RFC) was also light.1 Claimant requested reconsideration and the reconsideration order affirmed the closure order.
The Board made inconsistent statements regarding claimant’s BFC. The Board stated that claimant’s BFC was both medium and light.2 Both statements cannot be correct. SAIF concedes error but argues that the error is harmless. We do not agree. If claimant’s BFC is medium, he would be entitled to additional permanent disability. If claimant’s BFC [353]*353is light, claimant would not be entitled to additional permanent disability. Accordingly, remand to the Board is necessary to determine claimant’s correct BFC.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for reconsideration.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
978 P.2d 1037, 159 Or. App. 350, 1999 Ore. App. LEXIS 421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trujillo-v-pacific-safety-supply-orctapp-1999.