Case Title: Wheeler v. Boise Cascade

Citation: 298 Or. 452, 693 P.2d 632

Docket Number: 

State: oregon

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Date: 1985-01-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
693 P.2d 632 (1985)
298 Or. 452
In the matter of the Compensation of Kevin D. WHEELER, Claimant. Kevin D. Wheeler, Petitioner-Respondent On Review,
v.
BOISE CASCADE Corporation, Respondent-Petitioner On Review.
WCB 81-06963; CA A26809; SC S30467.

Supreme Court of Oregon, In Banc.
Argued and Submitted May 2, 1984.
Decided January 8, 1985.
Michael T. Garone, Portland, argued the cause for petitioner-respondent on review. With him on the brief was Jolles, Sokol & Bernstein, P.C., Portland.
Alan M. Muir, Portland, argued the cause for respondent-petitioner on review. With him on the brief was Schwabe, Williamson, Wyatt, Moore & Roberts, Portland.
CAMPBELL, Justice.
This case arises as a result of an occupational disease claim filed on April 6, 1981. The hearings referee held that the claim was compensable citing Hutcheson v. Weyerhaeuser, 288 Or. 51, 602 P.2d 268 (1979). The Workers' Compensation Board on review reversed the referee stating that the claimant did not satisfy the requirements that: (1) the work conditions caused a worsening of the underlying disease, Weller v. Union Carbide, 288 Or. 27, 602 P.2d 259 (1979); and (2) that work conditions were the major cause of the worsening, SAIF v. Gygi, 55 Or. App. 570, 639 P.2d 655 (1982).
The Court of Appeals reversed the Board by distinguishing Hutcheson and Weller. The Court of Appeals held that the record did not support the Weller and Stupfel v. Edward Hines Lumber Co., 288 Or. 39, 602 P.2d 264 (1979), requirement that there be a worsening of the underlying condition. However, it held that because the claimant had been asymptomatic and not receiving medical care for his disease until he started work that the claim was compensable under Hutcheson. We reverse.
The following facts are excerpted from the Court of Appeals opinion and the Board's record. In the fall of 1979 after graduating from high school, claimant got a job at Anderson's Plywood as a glue spreader. While there, he suffered from a rash caused by "glue poisoning." The condition cleared up with medical treatment. *633 He was laid off because of personnel cutbacks in February 1980 and remained unemployed until June 1980 when he went to work for Boise Cascade. He worked various jobs until October 1980 when he was permanently assigned as a green chain off bearer.
During the summer of 1980, claimant got a rash but it cleared up during the winter of 1980. By March 1981 the rash was again bothering claimant and he missed four or five days of work.
On April 6, 1981, claimant filled out a claim of Occupational Injury or Disease on which he claimed to be allergic to hemlock and glue. On April 14, 1981, the claim was "accepted" by Boise Cascade and claimant went to the doctor for diagnosis and treatment. Claimant was referred to a dermatologist who diagnosed the problem as atopic dermatitis, an inherited predisposition to have sensitive skin. The dermatologist noted the following:
On June 2, 1981, Boise Cascade, based on the information from medical reports, denied that the medical problem was compensable.
At oral argument claimant argued that as a matter of law Boise Cascade could not deny the claim once it had accepted the claim. He cited as authority Bauman v. SAIF, 295 Or. 788, 670 P.2d 1027 (1983). In Bauman, this court ruled that:
In Bauman, SAIF specifically accepted a claim as compensable and provided the claimant with an acceptance letter. SAIF then paid medical benefits for a period of three years before reversing its decision and denied compensability of the claim.
The controlling language in Bauman for this case is:
The record in this case shows that Boise Cascade denied compensability within *634 the 60-day time period. Therefore Bauman does not prohibit the denial of this claim.
The second issue raised is whether, in awarding compensation, the Weller criteria can be set aside because Hutcheson created its own test for claimants who were asymptomatic before beginning employment.
The Court of Appeals rationale for distinguishing Weller and Hutcheson is as follows:
We disagree. Hutcheson is only an application of the rule in Weller. The requirements for a claimant to prevail were set forth in Weller[1] as follows:
The analysis in Weller was the analysis in Stupfel[2] and Hutcheson.[3] The points of Hutcheson were that (1) to be compensable, an occupational disease or injury does not have to permanently worsen the condition, (2) the level of proof necessary to substantiate a claim is by a preponderance of evidence and (3) the record in Hutcheson was strong enough to conclude that the preexisting condition was exacerbated, thus satisfying the Weller criteria.
The Court of Appeals in its analysis created a distinction that was not there. It did find that the underlying condition did not worsen and that the Weller criteria were not met. We are bound by the finding of fact that the underlying condition did not worsen. Sahnow v. Fireman's Fund Inc. Co., 260 Or. 564, 491 P.2d 997 (1971). Therefore the plaintiff in this case cannot recover.
*635 We hold that the Weller analysis is the appropriate analysis whether the conditions are symptomatic or asymptomatic at the time of employment. The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the decision of the Workers' Compensation Board is reinstated.
[1]  In Weller v. Union Carbide, 288 Or. 27, 602 P.2d 259 (1979), claimant injured his back in a nonindustrial accident. His work as a crane operator caused pain but did not cause or aggravate his underlying disease. The Weller decision turned on the fact that element (2) of the test was not met, i.e., a worsening of the underlying disease.
[2]  In Stupfel v. Edward Hines Lumber Co., 288 Or. 39, 602 P.2d 264 (1979), claimant suffered from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and reactive airway disease. It was determined that the diseases were not caused by his work but that the work environment increased his symptomology. It was also determined that the work environment did not alter the progression of his underlying diseases. The four-part Weller test was applied and because the underlying condition was not worsened by the work conditions, an increase in symptomology was not compensable.
[3]  In Hutcheson v. Weyerhaeuser, 288 Or. 51, 602 P.2d 268 (1979), claimant suffered from a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, sinusitus and bronchitis. The disease was originally caused by smoking but the evidence showed work conditions temporarily exacerbated the pre-existing "chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, sinusitus and bronchitis so as to require medical services that would not have otherwise been necessary." 288 Or. at 56, 602 P.2d 268.