Precision Castparts Corp - PCC Structurals v. Cramer

ALJs and the Workers' Compensation Board are not required to evaluate whether the ARU abused its discretion because they conduct de novo review of the ARU's impairment determination. Marvin Wood Products v. Callow, 171 Or App. 175, 180, 14 P3d 686 (2000).

Employer sought judicial review of a final order from the Workers' Compensation Board that affirmed an administrative law judge's (ALJ) order that awarded claimant 15 percent whole person permanent impairment from a workplace injury. On appeal, Employer assigned error to the board having applied the wrong standard in its review of the ARU's order. Employer's argument was twofold, beginning with a claim that the ARU made a discretionary call under OAR 436-030-0165(9) by excluding an arbiter's examination in its review, followed by a claim that the board had to determine whether the ARU abused its discretion. ALJs and the Workers' Compensation Board are not required to evaluate whether the ARU abused its discretion because they conduct de novo review of the ARU's impairment determination. Marvin Wood Products v. Callow, 171 Or App. 175, 180, 14 P3d 686 (2000). The Court held that since the board conducted their review de novo, and since the record included an examination by an arbiter, they were not obligated to determine whether the ARU abused its discretion. Affirmed.