From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lucas v. Clark

Oregon Court of Appeals
Jun 15, 1988
756 P.2d 57 (Or. Ct. App. 1988)

Opinion

WCB 85-08631; CA A45786

Argued and submitted May 11, 1988

Remanded for reconsideration June 15, 1988

Judicial Review from Workers' Compensation Board.

James L. Edmunson, Eugene, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were Karen M. Werner and Malagon Moore, Eugene.

Christine Chute, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondents. With her on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.

Before Warden, Presiding Judge, and Graber, Judge, and Riggs, Judge Pro Tempore.


PER CURIAM

Remanded for reconsideration.


Claimant seeks review of a Workers' Compensation Board order that affirmed the referee and upheld the denial of his aggravation claim for a back condition. We review for substantial evidence. ORS 656.298 (6); ORS 183.482 (7) and (8). Because neither the Board order nor the referee's opinion and order which it affirmed are adequate for judicial review, see Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co., 90 Or. App. 200, 752 P.2d 312 (1988), we remand to the Board for reconsideration. On remand, the Board also should reconsider this case in the light of Gwynn v. SAIF, 304 Or. 345, 745 P.2d 775 (1987), on remand 91 Or. App. 84, 754 P.2d 586 (1988), and International Paper Co. v. Turner, 304 Or. 354, 745 P.2d 780 (1987), on remand 91 Or. App. 91, 754 P.2d 589 (1988).

Remanded for reconsideration.


Summaries of

Lucas v. Clark

Oregon Court of Appeals
Jun 15, 1988
756 P.2d 57 (Or. Ct. App. 1988)
Case details for

Lucas v. Clark

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Compensation of Edward D. Lucas, Claimant. LUCAS…

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Jun 15, 1988

Citations

756 P.2d 57 (Or. Ct. App. 1988)
756 P.2d 57