Sullivan v. SAIF

For a board's order to be supported by substantial evidence, it must point out “what findings the board made and how those findings led the board to its ultimate conclusion—that is, it must be supported by substantial reason.” Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co., 90 Or App 200, 206, 752 P2d 312 (1988).

Claimant, personal representative of deceased worker’s estate, seeks review of a Workers’ Compensation Board order, upholding SAIF’s denial of his claim for left L5-S1 radiculopathy. In this case, the experts dispute whether the deceased worker suffered from L5-S1 radiculopathy, and whether a work-related incident caused the condition. Claimant argued that the Board's order was not supported by substantial evidence or substantial reason because the board failed to defer to the physician's opinion and was without reason. Thus, the Board was unable to adequately explain its conclusion that the physician had based his opinion on an incomplete medical history and inaccurate information. In response, SAIF argued that whatever the Board's rationale for rejecting the physician’s opinion regarding the existence of L5-S1 radiculopathy, the evidence supported its conclusion that no causation existed. For a Board's order to be supported by substantial evidence, it must point out “what findings the board made and how those findings led the board to its ultimate conclusion.” Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co., 90 Or App 200, 206, 752 P2d 312 (1988). The Court found that the board’s rationale for rejecting the claimant's treating physician’s opinion were unsupported by the facts in the record. Consequently, it was determined that there was neither sufficient evidence nor substantial reason for rejecting the treating physician's opinion. Reversed and remanded.