SAIF v. Dunn

“An ‘occupation disease’ is defined to include ‘any series of traumatic events or occurrences which requires medical services or results in physical disability or death,’ ORS 656.802, and, ‘prior work injuries may be considered as part of the overall “employment conditions” when evaluating the major contributing cause of an occupation disease.” Hunter v. SAIF, 246 Or App 755, 760, 268 P3d 660 (2011).

SAIF appealed an order of the Worker’s Compensation Board. SAIF assigned error to the Board’s conclusion that SAIF was responsible for Claimant’s occupational disease claim.  On appeal, SAIF argued that the Claimant’s former employer, Ray-O-Lite, was also responsible and when multiple employers contributed to an occupational disease, initial responsibility is assigned under ORS 656.308(1) to the employer with a prior accepted claim involving the same condition. “An ‘occupation disease’ is defined to include ‘any series of traumatic events or occurrences which requires medical services or results in physical disability or death,’ ORS 656.802, and, ‘prior work injuries may be considered as part of the overall “employment conditions” when evaluating the major contributing cause of an occupation disease.” Hunter v. SAIF, 246 Or App 755, 760, 268 P3d 660 (2011). The Court of Appeals held that the Board did not err, and substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding that Claimant’s current condition constituting an occupational disease is not the same condition accepted by Ray-O-Lite in 2004, and therefore, Claimant could experience a new occupational disease or injury that encompasses an earlier injury. Affirmed.