Gibson v. ESIS

“[W]hether an agency’s ultimate conclusions from its findings of fact are supported by substantial reason turns on whether the agency’s order supplies a rational connection between the facts and the legal conclusions it draws from them such that the conclusions are sufficiently reviewable by an appellate court.” United Academics of OSU, 315 Or App at 355-56.

Claimant petitioned for review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board that upheld his employer’s denial of his new or omitted condition claim for osteoarthritis. On appeal, Claimant argues that the board applied the wrong legal standard when determining whether he had a legally cognizable combined condition. Claimant requested employer accept osteoarthritis and acute bone marrow lesions as new or omitted conditions. Employer refused, and this appeal followed. “[W]hether an agency’s ultimate  conclusions from its findings of fact are supported by substantial reason turns on  whether the agency’s order supplies a rational connection between the facts and the legal conclusions it draws from them such that the conclusions are sufficiently  reviewable by an appellate court.” United Academics of OSU, 315 Or App at 355-56. Relying on this reasoning, the Court held that “[t]o the extent the board’s order rests on a determination that the knee pain and the osteoarthritis resulted in a legally cognizable combined condition, it is not supported by substantial reason. Reversed and remanded.