From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hughes v. Weyerhaeuser Company

Oregon Court of Appeals
Nov 16, 1988
764 P.2d 234 (Or. Ct. App. 1988)

Opinion

WCB 86-00869; CA A46549

Argued and submitted June 16, 1988

Affirmed November 16, 1988

Judicial Review from Workers' Compensation Board.

Robert K. Udziela, Portland, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were Lawrence Baron and Pozzi, Wilson, Atchison, O'Leary Conboy, Portland.

Jerry K. Brown, McMinnville, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Cummins, Brown, Goodman, Fish Peterson, P.C., McMinnville.

Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Newman and Deits, Judges.


PER CURIAM

Affirmed.


Claimant seeks review of an order of the Workers' Compensation Board which reversed the referee's decision and upheld employer's denial. We affirm.

Claimant sought compensation for a low back condition which he asserted was an occupational disease. The issues raised by claimant are purely issues of fact. The petition for review was filed on November 18, 1987, consequently, our review is for substantial evidence. Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co., 90 Or. App. 200, 752 P.2d 312 (1988). Claimant contends on appeal that our review is de novo and, consequently, has not pointed out any fact finding of the Board which he contends is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. We decline to search the record to determine if the facts recited by the Board are supported in the record. The Board adequately explains the reasoning from the facts it found to the conclusion it reached.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Hughes v. Weyerhaeuser Company

Oregon Court of Appeals
Nov 16, 1988
764 P.2d 234 (Or. Ct. App. 1988)
Case details for

Hughes v. Weyerhaeuser Company

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Compensation of Clay E. Hughes, Claimant. HUGHES…

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Nov 16, 1988

Citations

764 P.2d 234 (Or. Ct. App. 1988)
764 P.2d 234