Case ID: or-app_125/html/0580-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Argued and submitted December 7,
    affirmed December 29, 1993,
    reconsideration denied February 9, petition for review denied February 22, 1994 (318 Or 381)
    In the Matter of the Compensation of Wanda L. Rowe, Claimant. ROSEBURG FOREST PRODUCTS, Petitioner, v. Wanda L. ROWE, Respondent.
    
    (WCB 91-08657; CA A80060)
    865 P2d 1329
    H. Scott Plouse argued the cause for petitioner. On the brief were Adam T. Stamper and Cowling & Heysell.
    David C. Force argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent.
    Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and Landau, Judges.
    PER CURIAM
   PER CURIAM

In this workers’ compensation case, claimant made a claim for an occupational disease, which she described as “[wjorking over number of year [sic], numbness, tingling, ect [sic] on putty machine for 17 years. ’ ’ She described the nature of the disease as “carpel [sic] tunnel.” The referee concluded that the condition was not compensable. On review, the Board reversed, holding that claimant’s “upper extremity” condition was compensable. The Board’s order is not entirely clear, because it finds an upper extremities condition compensable, when the claim was for carpal tunnel syndrome. Regardless of how the Board characterized the condition, there is no dispute that there is substantial evidence to support a finding that the condition for which claimant sought compensation, carpal tunnel syndrome, was caused in major part by claimant’s employment. We understand the Board’s order to decide no more than that claimant’s carpal tunnel syndrome is compensable. Accordingly, we affirm.

Affirmed.