Ward v. Mustola

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Ward v. Mustola

808 P.2d 109, 106 Or. App. 484, 1991 Ore. App. LEXIS 505, 1991 WL 45156

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedApril 3, 1991

Docket88-12202; CA A65570

StatusPublished

This text of 808 P.2d 109 (Ward v. Mustola) 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

Ward v. Mustola, 808 P.2d 109, 106 Or. App. 484, 1991 Ore. App. LEXIS 505, 1991 WL 45156 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Claimant seeks review of a Workers’ Compensation Board order affirming the referee’s decision that he is not permanently and totally disabled. Claimant contends that the Board’s order is inadequate for judicial review, because it does not contain findings sufficient to support its conclusion, and that the findings that the Board made are not supported by substantial evidence.

We agree that, in the light of the voluminous record and the conflicting evidence, the Board’s very sparse findings are not adequate, in and of themselves, to support its decision. The referee’s decision, which the Board affirmed, contains adequate findings and is supported by substantial evidence. If the Board intended to adopt the findings of the referee, it had to do so expressly. If that was not the Board’s intention, it had to make its own findings adequate, in and of themselves, to support its decision.

Reversed and remanded for reconsideration.

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

PER CURIAM

Claimant seeks review of a Workers’ Compensation Board order affirming the referee’s decision that he is not permanently and totally disabled. Claimant contends that the Board’s order is inadequate for judicial review, because it does not contain findings sufficient to support its conclusion, and that the findings that the Board made are not supported by substantial evidence.

We agree that, in the light of the voluminous record and the conflicting evidence, the Board’s very sparse findings are not adequate, in and of themselves, to support its decision. The referee’s decision, which the Board affirmed, contains adequate findings and is supported by substantial evidence. If the Board intended to adopt the findings of the referee, it had to do so expressly. If that was not the Board’s intention, it had to make its own findings adequate, in and of themselves, to support its decision.

Reversed and remanded for reconsideration.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

808 P.2d 109, 106 Or. App. 484, 1991 Ore. App. LEXIS 505, 1991 WL 45156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ward-v-mustola-orctapp-1991.