" Id. (quoting ORS 656.382(2) (1979) (ellipses in James )). Subsequently, in SAIF v. Curry , 297 Or. 504, 507, 686 P.2d 363 (1984), the insurer unsuccessfully sought this court's review of a Court of Appeals decision affirming the board's determination that the claimant was permanently and totally disabled. After we denied review, the claimant petitioned for attorney fees under ORS 656.382(2) (1983).

In workers' compensation cases, an award of attorney fees can be made only pursuant to statutory authorization. Forney v. Western States Plywood, 297 Or. 628, 632, 686 P.2d 1027 (1984); SAIF v. Curry, 297 Or. 504, 510-11, 686 P.2d 363 (1984). ORS 656.386 (1) provides:

Consequently, the Stipulated Settlement Order is a finding for purposes of ORS 656.328(2) that claimant's compensation award should not be disallowed or reduced. Like SAIF, the dissent relies on SAIF v. Curry, 297 Or. 504, 686 P.2d 363 (1984), and Agripac, Inc. v. Kitchel, 73 Or. App. 132, 698 P.2d 69 (1985), to reach a contrary conclusion. Those cases are inapposite.

Attorneys representing workers' compensation claimants may not recover a fee for legal services performed on appeal unless the court approves the fee, ORS 656.388, and the court's authority to award a fee to claimant's counsel "is limited to the authority granted by statute." SAIF v. Curry , 297 Or. 504, 511, 686 P.2d 363 (1984). As pertinent to the dispute in this case, ORS 656.386(1)(a) provides:

In SAIF v. Bond, 64 Or. App. 505, 669 P.2d 332 (1983), in which an insurer's appeal was dismissed on its own motion, we held that "in enacting ORS 656.382(2), the legislature intended that a claimant receive a reasonable attorney's fee paid by the employer or insurer when the claimant prevails, whether on the merits or because the appeal is dismissed, because the result is the same." We now overrule the holding in Bond on the basis of the Supreme Court's decision in SAIF v. Curry, 297 Or. 504, 686 P.2d 363 (1984). In Curry the issue was whether, under ORS 656.382(2), a claimant was entitled to attorney fees for work done in response to an insurer's petition for review in the Supreme Court that was ultimately denied.

" In SAIF v. Curry, 297 Or. 504, 686 P.2d 363 (1984), the court similarly focused on the issue of wearing down or harassing the claimant. ("One purpose of the statute is to discourage employers or their insurers from wearing down claimants with harassing and frivolous appeals.

Employer's remedy, if any, lies with the legislature. See SAIF v. Curry, 297 Or. 504, 511, 686 P.2d 363 (1984). Finally, employer argues that the record does not contain substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that claimant's pain and numbness were caused by his work. It returns to the theory that claimant had to prove a particular diagnosis in order to show by substantial evidence that the condition from which he suffers is related to the January 18 injury. It argues that that proof is required under Johnsen v. Hamilton Electric, 90 Or. App. 161, 751 P.2d 246 (1988), in which we held that the claimant failed to prove that he was entitled to compensation, because he had no evidence that the abnormal marks on his lung were caused by any injury or disease.