Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Story v. Astoria Plywood Corp.
Citations: 110 Or. App. 162; 821 P.2d 1123; 1991 Ore. App. LEXIS 1972Docket: 89-04841; CA A67264
Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon; December 10, 1991; Oregon; State Appellate Court
The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the denial of Joseph C. J.'s claim for compensation related to an ankle injury incurred on September 19, 1988. The Board established that Joseph had a long-standing condition of deep vein vascular incompetency in both legs, which predated the injury and caused significant issues, including swelling and ulcers. The employer initially accepted the ankle injury claim, but subsequent medical evaluations indicated that the ankle ulcer had healed and swelling had returned to its pre-injury state. On March 1, 1989, the employer notified Joseph that further compensation for his pre-existing vascular condition would be denied unless he could demonstrate that his treatment needs were related to the ankle injury. An April 7 determination order closed the claim, granting time loss benefits but no permanent disability. The Board concluded that the chronic vascular condition was separate from the ankle injury and determined that Joseph did not prove the ankle injury was a material contributing cause to the vascular condition. Joseph argued that the Board incorrectly applied the precedent set in Guerrero v. Stayton Canning Co., allowing the employer to deny responsibility for non-compensable conditions while a compensable claim remained open. The Board maintained that the vascular condition and the ankle injury were indeed separate, justifying the denial of compensation for the vascular condition despite the open ankle claim. Additionally, Joseph contended that the Board unfairly required him to demonstrate a worsening of his vascular condition. However, the evidence indicated that while the ankle injury may have exacerbated symptoms temporarily, the condition ultimately returned to its baseline status. Thus, he could not establish that his vascular condition had worsened due to the injury. The Board's decision was affirmed.