Clark v. Erdman Meat Packing

3 Citing cases

  1. Jewell v. SAIF Corp. (In re Jewell)

    291 Or. App. 703 (Or. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 1 times

    It is within the board’s authority to determine that a claim brought on an injury theory is properly characterized as an occupational disease claim. DiBrito v. SAIF , 319 Or. 244, 248, 875 P.2d 459 (1994) ("[I]n reviewing the record of a workers’ compensation claim, the Board’s first task is to determine which provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law are applicable."); see Clark v. Erdman Meat Packing , 88 Or.App. 1, 4-5, 744 P.2d 255 (1987), rev. den. , 305 Or. 102, 750 P.2d 496 (1988) ; O’Neal v. Sisters of Providence , 22 Or.App. 9, 12-13, 537 P.2d 580 (1975) (ultimate decision as to compensability turns on whether the claimant’s condition is properly characterized as an injury or an occupational disease). Claimant’s approach would bypass that preliminary step.

  2. Saif v. Scott

    824 P.2d 1188 (Or. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 3 times

    Dethlefs v. Hyster Co., 295 Or. 298, 307, 667 P.2d 487 (1983). If the disease is caused by both on-the-job and off-the-job agents, a claimant must establish that the agent at work was the major contributing cause of the disease. Dethlefs v. Hyster Co., supra, 295 Or at 310; Clark v. Erdman Meat Packing, 88 Or. App. 1, 5, 744 P.2d 255 (1987), rev den 305 Or. 102 (1988). Claimant was raised in the Willamette Valley and has been exposed to pine trees all of his life.

  3. Blakely v. Saif

    750 P.2d 528 (Or. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 2 times

    In order to establish that the syndrome is compensable, she must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that her condition is an occupational disease. ORS 656.802 (1)(a); Clark v. Erdman Meat Packing, 88 Or. App. 1, 744 P.2d 255 (1987). To do so, she must show that her work activities were the major contributing cause of either the onset or the worsening of her underlying condition.