Case Title: Leary v. Pacific Northwest Bell

Citation: 296 Or. 139, 675 P.2d 157

Docket Number: 

State: oregon

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Date: 1983-12-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
675 P.2d 157 (1983)
296 Or. 139
In the matter of the Compensation of Daniel LEARY, Claimant. Daniel Leary, Respondent On Review,
v.
PACIFIC NORTHWEST BELL, Petitioner On Review.
No. 80-01939; CA A23101; SC 29169.

Supreme Court of Oregon.
Argued and Submitted April 7, 1983.
Decided December 20, 1983.
Mildred J. Carmack, Portland, argued the cause for petitioner on review. On the petition and brief were Katherine H. O'Neil, William H. Replogle and Schwabe, Williamson, Wyatt, Moore & Roberts, Portland.
Robert K. Udziela, Portland, argued the cause for respondent on review. With him on the response to the petition and brief was Pozzi, Wilson, Atchison, O'Leary & Conboy, Portland.
Keith D. Skelton, Portland, filed a brief amicus curiae on behalf of himself and the Association of Workers' Compensation Defense Attorneys.
Darrell E. Bewley, Appellate Counsel, Salem, filed a brief amicus curiae on behalf of the State Accident Insurance Fund.
Stephen R. Frank of Tooze, Kerr, Marshall & Shenker, Portland, filed a brief amicus curiae on behalf of The Hartford Insurance Group.
Before LENT, C.J.,[*] and LINDE, PETERSON, CAMPBELL, CARSON and JONES, JJ.
JONES, Justice.
The claimant seeks workers' compensation benefits for physical disease and disorders allegedly arising out of on-the-job stressful conditions and events. The Court of Appeals, 60 Or. App. 459, 653 P.2d 1293, reversed the Workers' Compensation Board and allowed an award of benefits. We allowed review in this case and McGarrah v. SAIF, 296 Or. 145, 675 P.2d 159 (decided this date), to consider these claims for stress-related occupational disease.
We quote the facts and testimony as related by the Court of Appeals:
At PNB's request, claimant was examined by Dr. Colbach, a psychiatrist, who reported:
*159 The Court of Appeals found that claimant suffered a greater and different degree of stress when he was at work, that there was no evidence he suffered from any unusual stress from non-employment sources, and that his work-related stress was the major contributing cause of his disability, notwithstanding that it was largely due to his own reaction to his working conditions. Compensation was allowed.
The Court of Appeals based its conclusion that the work-related stress was the major contributing cause of the claimant's disability on the subjective test we rejected in McGarrah v. SAIF, supra. The Court of Appeals stated the "work-related stress appears largely to be his own reaction to his working conditions" and quoted Dr. Colbach's testimony:
This occupational disease case is remanded to the Court of Appeals to apply the objective standard set forth in McGarrah v. SAIF, supra.
[*]  Justice Lent was Chief Justice when case was argued; Justice Peterson was Chief Justice when decision rendered.