Netherton v. Aerotek Inc.

When deciding apportion impairment, the board is not limited to closures. McDermott v. SAIF, 286 Or App 406, 398 P3d 964 (2017).

Claimant petitioned the order reducing Claimant’s personal partial disability (PPD) payments from the Worker’s Compensation Board when Claimant’s employer asked the board to reconsider Claimant’s PPD award. Claimant assigned error to the Appellate Review Unit of the Workers’ Compensation Division decision to affirm the reduction of Claimant’s PPD. Claimant argued “that the board may apportion impairment only when a claim for a combined or consequential condition is closed under ORS 656.268(1)(b), and not when, as here, a claim is closed under ORS 656.268(1)(a)” and that determinations of awards should be considered using Oregon Disability Rating Standards. When deciding to apportion impairment, the board is not limited to closures. McDermott v. SAIF, 286 Or App 406, 398 P3d 964 (2017). The court held that the board did not err when it reduced the claimant’s PPD. The Court also held that the board properly determined claimant’s impairment based on the correct standards in ORS 656.726. Affirmed.