Case ID: or-app_94/html/0173-01.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 September 9,
    on petition, remanded to the board to determine compensability of claimant’s scoliosis and otherwise affirmed; affirmed on cross-petition November 23,1988
    In the Matter of the Compensation of Barbara June Meherin, Claimant. MEHERIN, Petitioner - Cross-Respondent, v. STAYTON CANNING CO., Respondent - Cross-Petitioner.
    
    (86-00160; CA A45922)
    764 P2d 619
    Craig A. Staples, Portland, argued the cause for respondent - cross-petitioner. With him on the brief was Roberts, Reinisch & Klor, P.C., Portland.
    
      Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Warren and Rossman, Judges.
    PER CURIAM
   PER CURIAM

In this workers’ compensation case, claimant experienced a compensable back injury, which employer accepted. Employer subsequently issued a “partial denial” of claimant’s scoliosis. Claimant properly challenged the denial by requesting a hearing. The referee determined that the scoliosis was compensable, and that, in addition, employer’s denial of the condition was precluded by Bauman v. SAIF, 295 Or 788, 670 P2d 1027 (1983). The Board correctly reversed the referee on the Bauman question, noting that Johnson v. Spectra Physics, 303 Or 49, 733 P2d 1367 (1987), permits the partial denial of a condition that has not, as here, been formally accepted. However, it erred in remanding the matter to the Evaluation Division to determine the compensability of the scoliosis. The parties agree that the Board should have determined that question.

On petition, remanded to the Board to determine the compensability of claimant’s scoliosis and otherwise affirmed; affirmed on cross-petition.