Case Title: Price v. SAIF

Citation: 296 Or. 311, 675 P.2d 479

Docket Number: 

State: oregon

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Date: 1984-01-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
675 P.2d 479 (1984)
296 Or. 311
In the matter of the Compensation of Noble PRICE, Claimant. Noble Price, Petitioner On Review,
v.
SAIF Corporation, Respondent On Review.
CA A27755; SC 29817.

Supreme Court of Oregon, In Banc.
Argued and Submitted December 7, 1983.
Decided January 24, 1984.
Evohl F. Malagon, Eugene, argued the cause, for petitioner on review. On brief were Christopher D. Moore and Malagon & Associates, Eugene.
Darrell E. Bewley, SAIF Corporation, Salem, argued the cause, for respondent on review.
ROBERTS, Justice.
The question in this workers' compensation case is whether the Court of Appeals properly dismissed claimant's appeal from the Workers' Compensation Board as premature.
The record in this case includes the petition for review of the order of the Workers' Compensation Board, with the order of the Board attached, and the documents related to the motion to dismiss. There is no transcript or referee's decision because the Board refused to forward them to the court on the basis that it, not the court, had jurisdiction. We take the following facts from the Board's order.
In October, 1979, claimant suffered a compensable low back strain while lifting lumber at work. During his treatment by three different doctors he expressed a fear of returning to work, and when released for work, arranged to return on a part-time basis. On his second day back at work in March, 1980, claimant began to experience chest pains at the beginning of his four hour *480 shift. The pain became progressively worse after he had finished his shift and he sought treatment at a medical center. After seeking medical information on whether there was a possible relationship between the back injury and claimant's heart condition, SAIF denied the heart condition claim on the basis of insufficient evidence relating claimant's condition to his work activities. Claimant was then evaluated by various doctors including an anesthesiologist specializing in the control of chronic pain, a psychiatrist and two cardiologists.
The Board's order states:
After analyzing the range of consequences of an injury, the Board said,
Because the Board reversed the referee's order holding the heart condition[1] compensable, it remanded to the referee for a determination of the extent of disability of the back condition. Claimant filed notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals and SAIF moved to dismiss on the basis that the Board's order was not a final appealable order. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as premature.
We allowed review because we were concerned that claimant presented two separate claims, in which event the determination that the chest pains were not *481 compensable would have been a final order and appealable because no further action would have been required to dispose of the claim. Winters v. Grimes, 124 Or. 214, 216-17, 264 P. 359 (1928). We now conclude from the language in the Board's opinion that this was one claim; all the parties, at the hearing and Board level, treated the heart problem as a new development resulting from the back injury. That, however, does not mean that claimant is precluded from appealing the denial of the heart condition.
We noted in Ohlig v. FMC Marine & Rail Equip't Divn., 291 Or. 586, 596, 633 P.2d 1279 (1981) that "partial denials" are recognized and litigated in practice and provided for by administrative rule. The rule cited there, OAR 436-83-125, is still in effect. It provides:
We also pointed out in Ohlig that the Workers' Compensation Bar is aware of the practice of partial denials by referring to "Workers' Compensation (Oregon CLE 1980)" § 24.24 which states:
An order which addresses two separate aspects of the same claim, extent of disability on the accepted claim and compensability for an additional allegedly related disease, infection or injury, may finally determine one issue but not the other. Such is the case here. It is clear that there is nothing to be accomplished with reference to the heart condition on remand. The referee would be precluded from considering it again and would calculate extent of disability on the back injury alone; assuming the extent of disability would be appealed, the Board would refuse to consider compensability of the heart condition having already denied compensation.
We deem SAIF's denial, and the Board's affirmance of the denial, of the heart condition to be a partial denial, and it is, therefore, appealable. The remand by the Board is effective only to that portion of the order requiring a determination of extent of disability of the back injury. Extent of disability may be decided while compensability is being litigated. SAIF v. Maddox, 295 Or. 448, 667 P.2d 529 (1983).
The Court of Appeals dismissal was error; we remand for a consideration of whether the heart condition is compensable.
Reversed and remanded.
[1]  We use the words "heart condition" but we note the Board's opinion makes reference to "chest pains" and "heart problem." Our use of "heart condition" is only a way of characterizing this claimed ailment; nothing in our opinion should be interpreted to mean claimant has established a heart condition.