Timothy C. Guild v. SAIF Corporation

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Workers Compensation
  • Date Filed: 05-16-2018
  • Case #: A162261
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: DeHoog, P.J, For the Court; Hadlock, J.; & Schuman, S.J.
  • Full Text Opinion

“If the board’s finding is reasonable in the light of countervailing as well as supporting evidence, then the finding is supported by substantial evidence.” Elsea v. Liberty Mutual Ins., 277 Or App 475, 476, 371 P3d 1279 (2016); ORS 656.298; ORS 183.482(7) - (8).; ORS 183.482(8)(c) (“Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.”).

Plaintiff seeks judicial review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board (board) denying his request for permanent total disability (PTD) benefits. Plaintiff argues that the board rejected his physician’s medical opinion that he is completely disabled because the doctor commented on the plaintiff’s age, education and job availability. Plaintiff asserts that the board’s determination was not supported by substantial evidence. Respondents argue that substantial evidence supports the board’s finding that claimant was not completely physically disabled. It was concluded that the board’s finding was not sup­ported by substantial evidence because “no reasonable per­son, properly viewing the record as a whole, could make that finding.” Additionally, the board failed to ade­quately explain its reasons for rejecting the doctor’s opinion and therefore lacked substantial reason. Reversed and remanded.

Advanced Search

Back to Top