Vessey v. SAIF Corp.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Vessey v. SAIF Corp.

762 P.2d 1066, 93 Or. App. 617

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedOctober 26, 1988

DocketWCB 85-06062; CA A43063

StatusPublished

This text of 762 P.2d 1066 (Vessey 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

Vessey v. SAIF Corp., 762 P.2d 1066, 93 Or. App. 617 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Claimant appeals an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board which reversed the decision of the referee that claimant was entitled to an award of permanent total disability. The Board awarded her 60 percent permanent partial disability. The petition for review was filed February 10,1987. We review de novo, Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co., 90 Or App 200, 752 P2d 312 (1988).

There are no issues of law involved; only issues of fact. The principal difference between the decision of the referee and that of the Board was whether claimant had satisfied the requirements of ORS 656.206(3) that she “is willing to seek regular gainful employment and that [she] has made reasonable efforts to obtain such employment.” We conclude that the referee correctly analyzed the evidence and we agree with his findings and conclusions. It would serve no purpose to recite the findings of the referee in this opinion.

Reversed; referee’s order reinstated.

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

PER CURIAM

Claimant appeals an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board which reversed the decision of the referee that claimant was entitled to an award of permanent total disability. The Board awarded her 60 percent permanent partial disability. The petition for review was filed February 10,1987. We review de novo, Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co., 90 Or App 200, 752 P2d 312 (1988).

There are no issues of law involved; only issues of fact. The principal difference between the decision of the referee and that of the Board was whether claimant had satisfied the requirements of ORS 656.206(3) that she “is willing to seek regular gainful employment and that [she] has made reasonable efforts to obtain such employment.” We conclude that the referee correctly analyzed the evidence and we agree with his findings and conclusions. It would serve no purpose to recite the findings of the referee in this opinion.

Reversed; referee’s order reinstated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

762 P.2d 1066, 93 Or. App. 617, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vessey-v-saif-corp-orctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack