 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Robinson v. Robinson9/9/1992
COURT OF APPEALS OF OREGON
CA No. A69912
1992.OR.40906 ; 836 P.2d 1362; 115 Or. App. 154
Decided: September 9, 1992.
IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPENSATION OF RONALD D. ROBINSON, CLAIMANT. AETNA CASUALTY COMPANY AND THE BOEING COMPANY, PETITIONERS,
v.
RONALD D. ROBINSON, RESPONDENT
Judicial Review from Workers' Compensation Board. No. 89-13506.
Jeremy L. Fellows, Portland, argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the brief was Scheminske & Lyons, Portland.
Anthony A. Allen, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Jean Fisher LeDoux and Gatti, Gatti, Maier, et al, Salem.
Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Deits and Durham Judges.
Deits
Employer seeks review of an order of the Workers' Compensation Board holding that claimant must only prove that his preexisting compensable injury was a material, rather than a major, contributing cause of his mental disorder and concluding that claimant's mental disorder was compensable. We affirm.
Claimant was a machinist for employer. In November, 1985, he suffered a compensable back injury when he slipped on ice in the company parking lot. He filed an aggravation claim for his back in April, 1988, which employer denied in February, 1989. In November, 1988, claimant also developed stomach problems and sleeplessness. He was depressed about being off work, financial and marital problems, as well as back pain. His chiropractor referred him to Colistro, Worthington and Associates for psychological evaluation and treatment. He was evaluated by Tinker, an unlicensed psychology resident, who diagnosed depression and authorized time loss as of May 23, 1989.
In July, 1989, employer denied compensability for "mental disorder including all disability, symptoms and treatment in any way related thereto." Claimant requested a hearing. The referee found that claimant's injury was a material contributing cause of his psychological condition. He was awarded compensation for his psychological condition. Employer appealed, and the Board affirmed.
Employer first assigns error to the Board's Conclusion that claimant was only required to prove that his mental disorder was caused in material part by a preexisting compensable injury. It contends that claimant should have been required to meet the major contributing cause standard for an occupational disease under ORS 656.802(2). We have held, however, that ORS 656.802 is not applicable when a claimant seeks to recover benefits for a mental disorder that is a consequence of a compensable injury, but does not seek to establish the independent compensability of the disorder. Boeing Co. v. Viltrakis, 112 Or App 396, 398, 829 P2d 738 (1992). We conclude that claimant is seeking compensation of
a mental condition that is a consequence of his compensable injury. Accordingly, under the statutes in effect at the time of the hearing, he was only required to prove that his injury was a material contributing cause of his psychological condition. The Board applied the correct standard.
Employer also argues that, because claimant's mental condition developed gradually over a long period, the claim must be treated as an occupational disease claim. However, whether a mental condition develops gradually or suddenly is not necessarily determinative of whether the claim is for an occupational dis
Page 1 2 3 Oregon Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|