Gage v. Fred Meyer Stores - Kroger Co.

The Court undertakes a review for substantial evidence that incorporates substantial reason "to determine whether the [Worker's Compensation] board adequately explained how it got from the factual findings that it made to the legal conclusions that it reached." SAIF v. Harrison, 299 Or App 104, 105 (2019).

Claimant sought judicial review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board (board) that affirmed closure of her claim and denied an award for additional permanent disability.  On appeal, Claimant assigned error to the board dismissing the medical arbiter panel opinion as ambiguous and instead basing their decision on an attending physician’s opinion. Claimant argued that the board failed to show substantial evidence and reason to support its findings. The Court undertakes a review for substantial evidence that incorporates substantial reason "to determine whether the [Worker's Compensation] board adequately explained how it got from the factual findings that it made to the legal conclusions that it reached." SAIF v. Harrison, 299 Or App 104, 105 (2019).  The Court found the medical arbiter panel’s report was unambiguous because the ascription of Claimant’s impairment was indisputable, nor did the supplemental report foster ambiguity as to the original report, as it responded to a different question about claimant’s impairment.  Finally, the Court held the board’s reliance on the attending physician’s reports for its decision lacked substantial evidence or reason. Reversed and remanded.