Simi v. LTI Inc.-Lynden Inc.

“ORS 656.802(1)(a) defines an occupational disease as ‘any disease or infection arising out of and in the course of employment . . . including: (c) [a]ny series of traumatic events or occurrences which requires medical services or results in physical disability or death.”

Claimant appealed from a Workers' Compensation Board (the "Board") order that upheld his employer’s denial of his worker’s compensation claim (in which he asserted he had an occupational disease, ORS. 656.802) based on the finding that Claimant’s condition was not the product of Claimant’s “general work activities.” Claimant assigned error to the Board’s determination that Claimant failed to show that his “general work activities” contributed to his condition. On appeal, Claimant argued that ORS 656.802(1)(a) does not require the level of specificity that was requested of him. In response, Employer argued that an occupational disease referred only to occupational diseases “brought on gradually by physical overuse or repetitive motion and not to encompass a series of injuries.” “ORS 656.802(1)(a) defines an occupational disease as ‘any disease or infection arising out of and in the course of employment . . . including: (c) [a]ny series of traumatic events or occurrences which requires medical services or results in physical disability or death.” The Court held that while Employer was correct that the statute “was intended to clarify that conditions brought on by microtrauma or overuse” were to be deemed occupational diseases, these factors were not the sole display of an occupational disease. Because Claimant’s medical evidence shows that the condition was brought on “by the cumulative effect of a series of work-related injuries, the disease itself is also work-related and compensable.” (citing Hunter v. SAIF Corp, 246 Or App 755, 766, 268 P3d 660 (2011)).

Reversed and Remanded.