Case ID: or-app_91/html/0524-01.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 March 16,
    remanded for reconsideration June 15, 1988
    In the Matter of the Compensation of Linda L. Beard, Claimant. SHIPP et al, Petitioners, v. BEARD, Respondent.
    
    (WCB 86-00068; CA A45095)
    756 P2d 57
    Paul L. Roess, Portland, argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the brief was Acker, Underwood & Smith, Portland.
    Marianne Bottini, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Larry D. Schucht and Bottini, Bottini & Lehner, Portland.
    Before Warden, Presiding Judge, and Van Hoomissen and Graber, Judges.
    PER CURIAM
   PER CURIAM

Employer and its insurance carrier seek review of a Workers’ Compensation Board order. The petition for judicial review was filed on July 24,1987, and we therefore review for substantial evidence. Or Laws 1987, ch 884, § 12a; Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co., 90 Or App 200, 205, 752 P2d 312 (1988). Because the Board order is inadequate for judicial review under the standards in Armstrong, we remand to the Board for reconsideration.

Remanded for reconsideration.