From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Utrera v. Dept. of General Services

Oregon Court of Appeals
Dec 30, 1987
747 P.2d 405 (Or. Ct. App. 1987)

Opinion

WCB 85-14220; CA A42877

Argued and submitted November 2, 1987

Reversed and remanded December 30, 1987

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.

Darrell E. Bewley, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.

Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Warren and Rossman, Judges.


BUTTLER, P.J.

Reversed and remanded.


Claimant seeks review of an order of the Workers' Compensation Board affirming the referee's determination that her claim was not prematurely closed and that she is not entitled to additional permanent partial disability.

At the time of claim closure, November 8, 1985, all medical reports indicated that claimant was medically stationary from a physical standpoint. By that time, however, at least two doctors had diagnosed significant depression, and she had been referred for pain therapy. Not until six months later did Dr. Friedman, a psychologist, expressly state that claimant's psychological condition was related to her compensable injury and that she was not psychologically stationary. His opinion does not state that she was not psychologically stationary at the time of claim closure; however, that conclusion is implicit, because Friedman was treating her for the same depressive condition that had been identified before the claim was closed, and it had only improved since that time.

A claimant's psychological condition should be considered in determining whether the claim should be closed. Rogers v. Tri-Met, 75 Or. App. 470, 706 P.2d 209 (1985). Although Friedman's report was not available at the time of closure, it was available at the time of the hearing, and the referee and the Board should have considered it in determining whether claimant's condition was psychologically stationary at the time of closure. Scheuning v. J.R. Simplot Company, 84 Or. App. 622, 735 P.2d 1, rev den 303 Or. 590 (1987).

Reversed and remanded.


Summaries of

Utrera v. Dept. of General Services

Oregon Court of Appeals
Dec 30, 1987
747 P.2d 405 (Or. Ct. App. 1987)
Case details for

Utrera v. Dept. of General Services

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Compensation of Leonila C. Utrera, Claimant. UTRERA…

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Dec 30, 1987

Citations

747 P.2d 405 (Or. Ct. App. 1987)
747 P.2d 405

Citing Cases

Nordstrom, Inc. v. Gaul

Worthington's diagnosis after the determination order was issued confirmed that, at the time that it was…