 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Errand v. Cascade Steel Rolling Mills Inc.2/2/1995
Plaintiff filed a complaint in circuit court against defendant, his employer, alleging statutory and common law negligence claims and seeking damages for economic losses, past and future medical bills, lost wages, and impairment of earning capacity. The trial court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment on the ground that defendant is immune from liability and that plaintiff's exclusive remedy is under the Workers' Compensation Law. ORS 656.018. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Errand v. Cascade Steel Rolling Mills, Inc., 126 Or.App. 450, 454-55, 869 P.2d 358 (1994). For the reasons that follow, we reverse.
Plaintiff, a worker at defendant's manufacturing plant, had a preexisting condition of chronic infectious paranasal sinusitis that was not caused by his current work experiences or environment. That preexisting condition, which predisposes plaintiff to experience airway irritation, became symptomatic due to his inhalation of substances in the workplace. Plaintiff sought treatment for his symptoms and filed a workers' compensation claim. The insurer denied the claim, explaining that "it does not appear your condition was worsened by or arose out of and in the course of your employment, either by accident or occupational disease." Plaintiff appealed that denial.
A referee defined the issue as whether plaintiff's work exposure caused or worsened his chronic infectious paranasal sinusitis or "caused a complex of symptoms that would be recognized in workers' compensation law as a disease." After noting that plaintiff's sinusitis predisposed him to experience airway irritation, the referee found:
"Claimant does not have a reactive airway disease or occupational asthma. He does have transient irritation of the upper respiratory tract and paranasal sinuses as a result of inhalation of substances found in his workplace.
"Claimant's work exposure is not the major cause of his chronic infectious paranasal sinusitis."
The referee upheld the insurer's denial of the claim. In its final order, the Workers' Compensation Board adopted the referee's order and held that plaintiff had not established that his condition was compensable, because work was not the "major cause" of his condition. Plaintiff did not seek judicial review of the Board's order.
Plaintiff then brought this action in circuit court against his employer, based on inhalation of and exposure to particulates in the workplace, alleging statutory and common law claims. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff's exclusive remedy is under the Workers' Compensation Law and that, under ORS 656.018, defendant is immune from liability. The trial court granted defendant's motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding:
"With certain exceptions not involved here, if the Workers' Compensation Act is applicable, and if the employer has satisfied its obligation to comply with the requirements of the Act, then the employer's liability to the worker for the worker's work-related injury or condition is exclusively under the Act, and the Act is also the exclusive remedy for the injured worker. That is one part of the quid pro quo that underlies our workers' compensation system; the other part requires the employer to assume liability for work-related injuries without fault.
" * * * * *
"The exclusivity of the Act is not limited to claims that are ultimately determined to be compensable." Errand v. Cascade Steel Rolling Mills, Inc., supra, 126 Or.App. at 453-54, 869 P.2d 358 (emphasis in original).
Plaintiff argues on review that the exclusivity provisions of ORS 656.018 do not apply because, although his respira
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Oregon Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|