- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Administrative Law
- Date Filed: 12-16-2020
- Case #: A169935
- Judge(s)/Court Below: DeVore, P.J., for the court; Mooney, J.; & Hadlock, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Jensen’s driving privileges were revoked by the DMV on the grounds of Jensen’s “severe impairment” resulting from a stroke, pursuant to ORS 809.419(3). The “administrative law judge” (ALJ) affirmed the decision. On appeal, Jensen assigned error to (1) consideration of an occupational therapist’s diagnosis and (2) that no “substantial evidence” under ORS 183.482(8)(c) supported the ALJ’s judgment. Jensen argued that the therapist was not a “mandatory reporter,” and so the report was improper. Oregon appellate courts do not consider questions of law unless first presented to the lower court. ORAP 5.45. Because Jensen identified no part of the ALJ record where the issue was presented, the Court found that the error was unpreserved. Next, “substantial evidence” means that that a reasonable person could reach that conclusion on “the record, viewed as a whole.” ORS 183.482(8)(c); see City of Portland v. Bureau of Labor and Ind., 298 Or 104, 118 n 7 (1984). Here, the Court found that it was reasonable to reach the ALJ’s conclusion because the therapist’s report detailed a lack of control over hand movement, and Jensen offered no evidence of additional therapy or rehabilitation of this condition, except his/her own testimony. Therefore, the Court held that “substantial evidence” supported the ALJ’s conclusion. Affirmed.