- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Workers Compensation
- Date Filed: 05-16-2018
- Case #: A162261
- Judge(s)/Court Below: DeHoog, P.J, For the Court; Hadlock, J.; & Schuman, S.J.
- Full Text Opinion
Plaintiff seeks judicial review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board (board) denying his request for permanent total disability (PTD) benefits. Plaintiff argues that the board rejected his physician’s medical opinion that he is completely disabled because the doctor commented on the plaintiff’s age, education and job availability. Plaintiff asserts that the board’s determination was not supported by substantial evidence. Respondents argue that substantial evidence supports the board’s finding that claimant was not completely physically disabled. It was concluded that the board’s finding was not supported by substantial evidence because “no reasonable person, properly viewing the record as a whole, could make that finding.” Additionally, the board failed to adequately explain its reasons for rejecting the doctor’s opinion and therefore lacked substantial reason. Reversed and remanded.