From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ware v. Saif

Oregon Court of Appeals
Jan 6, 1972
492 P.2d 484 (Or. Ct. App. 1972)

Opinion

Submitted on appellant's brief December 3, 1971,

Reversed and remanded with instructions January 6, 1972

Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County, ROBERT E. JONES, Judge.

Lee Johnson, Attorney General, John W. Osburn, Solicitor General, and Al J. Laue, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, for appellant.

No appearance for respondent.

Before SCHWAB, Chief Judge, and FOLEY and FORT, Judges.


Claimant requested and was granted a hearing in which he protested a denial of his claim for compensation based upon an alleged disabling occupational disease. The hearing officer found as a fact that claimant was not suffering from a compensable occupational disease.

Instead of "an appeal to the medical board of review under ORS 656.808 et seq," claimant appealed directly to the circuit court, purportedly under ORS 656.810(4). The defendant filed a timely motion to dismiss in the circuit court as contemplated by Beaudry v. Winchester Plywood Co., 255 Or. 503, 469 P.2d 25 (1970), in which the court stated:

"* * * The party prevailing before the hearing officer will then be able to terminate the appeal without further proceedings by a motion to dismiss, if the matters sought to be appealed are not within the cognizance of the circuit court but are within that of the medical board of review * * *." 255 Or at 510.

The circuit court denied the motion and entered a judgment order finding, inter alia:

"(2) That claimant has an occupational disease;

"(3) That the claimant has an occupational disease disability, the nature and extent of which must be determined;

"(4) That this case be remanded to the Workmen's Compensation Board for the convening of a Medical Board of Review to determine the issue of the extent of disability * * *."

The determination that a claimant suffers from a particular condition and usually the causes of that condition are questions of fact, as is the question of whether that condition is disabling. Jurisdiction to determine such questions is vested by statute, ORS 656.802 et seq, in the medical board of review and not in the circuit court. Johnson v. SAIF, 5 Or. App. 201, 483 P.2d 472 (1971).

Reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss claimant's appeal.


Summaries of

Ware v. Saif

Oregon Court of Appeals
Jan 6, 1972
492 P.2d 484 (Or. Ct. App. 1972)
Case details for

Ware v. Saif

Case Details

Full title:WARE, Respondent, v. STATE ACCIDENT INSURANCE FUND, Appellant

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Jan 6, 1972

Citations

492 P.2d 484 (Or. Ct. App. 1972)
492 P.2d 484

Citing Cases

In the Matter of the Compensation of Bonham

SAIF v. Tull, 113 Or. App. 449, 832 P.2d 1271 (1992) (what is a condition is a question of fact that the…

Court v. Saif

The request for further hearings and appeals could act only as a rejection by claimant and trigger the…