Case Title: SAIF v. Stephen

Citation: 308 Or. 41, 774 P.2d 1103

Docket Number: 

State: oregon

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Date: 1989-05-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
774 P.2d 1103 (1989)
308 Or. 41
In the matter of the Compensation of Grace L. Stephen, Claimant.
SAIF Corporation and Oregon Shipyards, Petitioners On Review,
v.
Grace L. STEPHEN, Respondent On Review.
WCB 85-14678; CA A46435; SC S35680.

Supreme Court of Oregon.
Argued and Submitted March 9, 1989.
Decided May 31, 1989.
Christine Chute, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for petitioners on review. With her on the petition were Dave Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen. and Virginia L. Linder, Sol. Gen., Salem.
James L. Edmunson of Malagon & Associates, Eugene, argued the cause for respondent on review.
Before PETERSON, C.J., and LINDE, CARSON, JONES, GILLETTE and FADELEY, JJ.
*1104 JONES, Justice.
The issue in this workers' compensation case is whether a claimant who voluntarily leaves the work force and thereafter becomes totally disabled by a compensable injury is entitled to permanent total disability (PTD) benefits. We hold that, before a claimant is entitled to PTD benefits, the claimant must establish that, but for the compensable injury, she is or would be willing to seek regular gainful employment and has or would have made reasonable efforts to do so. We remand this case to the Workers' Compensation Board (Board) to make findings concerning whether, but for the compensable injury, the claimant would have returned to work.
We take the following facts from the Board's Order on Review:
We add the following from the parties' agreed statement of facts:
The Board's order further stated:
The referee concluded that claimant was totally disabled for the three months following both surgeries, and therefore awarded claimant temporary total disability (TTD).
The Board reversed the award of TTD on the basis of Cutright v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 299 Or. 290, 702 P.2d 403 (1985), finding that claimant voluntarily left the labor market and thereafter "neither sought nor obtained work outside of her home again." The Board, however, affirmed the referee's award of PTD. SAIF Corporation (SAIF) appealed and the Court of Appeals affirmed per curiam. SAIF Corp. v. Stephen, 93 Or. App. 217, 761 P.2d 931 (1988). We allowed review to determine whether, as a matter of law, a claimant who voluntarily withdrew from the labor force and subsequently became totally disabled by a compensable occupational disease is entitled to PTD, and if so, under what circumstances.
In Cutright v. Weyerhaeuser Co., supra, this court held that claimants who were voluntarily out of the labor force when their prior compensable conditions worsened and surgery became necessary were not entitled to additional compensation for TTD. Cutright noted that "[t]he thrust of the [workers' compensation] act is to restore injured workers to employment status." 299 Or. at 297, 702 P.2d 403.
In this case, claimant essentially argues that PTD, unlike TTD, is based on lost earning capacity, rather than wage replacement. Claimant is wrong. That battle was fought in Cutright  PTD is based on wage replacement. The majority's reasoning in Cutright supports this conclusion; only the dissent supports claimant's position.
Cutright explains that the Workers' Compensation Law is grounded on wage replacement and medical treatment:
Moreover, Cutright indicates that lost earning capacity is not independently compensable:
SAIF maintains that the award of PTD benefits should be reversed because claimant voluntarily removed herself from the labor market more than 40 years before she became totally disabled. The Workers' Compensation Law applies to "workers." See ORS 656.027. In part, ORS 656.005(27) defines a "worker" as
A person who voluntarily withdraws from the work force is not entitled to PTD benefits for a subsequent disability because she or he is no longer a worker, that is, no longer one who "engages to furnish services for a remuneration." Such a person does not suffer lost wages as a result of a subsequent disability. As stated in Cutright:
Removal from the work force, however, is not necessarily a static state. A claimant may voluntarily leave the work force with a sincere hope of never having to return, but later decide that returning to the work force is desirable or necessary because of changed financial or personal circumstances. If such a claimant is unable to return to the work force because of a prior compensable injury, he or she would suffer lost wages at that point. Such a claimant is not barred from receiving PTD benefits solely because he or she earlier voluntarily left the work force.
A claimant who seeks to re-enter the work force after voluntary withdrawal, but is prevented from doing so by a compensable injury, may qualify as a worker although not presently engaged "to furnish services for a remuneration." ORS 656.003 provides that the statutory definitions apply "[e]xcept where the context otherwise requires." Because such a claimant suffers lost wages as a result of a compensable injury, the term "worker" as used in ORS 656.206 includes such a claimant. The inquiry concerning whether such a claimant is entitled to PTD benefits, however, does not end here.
ORS 656.206(3) provides:
Thus, before a claimant is entitled to PTD he or she must establish that, but for the compensable injury, he or she (1) is or would be willing to seek regular gainful employment and (2) has or would have made reasonable efforts to obtain such employment. A claimant who is so incapacitated that he or she cannot perform regular gainful employment need not establish that he or she "has made reasonable efforts to obtain such employment" because seeking such work would be futile. ORS 656.206(3) was not intended to require claimants to engage in such a useless act. See Cutright v. Weyerhaeuser Co., supra, 299 Or. at 307, 702 P.2d 403 (Lent, J., dissenting). Such a claimant, however, must establish that he or she, but for the compensable injury, is or would be willing to seek regular gainful employment.
In the instant case the Board found:
We agree that the findings justify the conclusion that any attempt by claimant to obtain regular gainful employment would have been futile. But that does not end the inquiry. Neither the Board nor the referee[1] made findings concerning whether, but for the compensable injury, the claimant would have returned to work. This determination is essential concerning claimant's eligibility for PTD. It is not sufficient, for example, to show only that she is prevented from returning by other, nonjob-related disabilities. Accordingly, we remand the case to the Board for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
[1]  In his September 12, 1989, Opinion and Order, the referee stated in part:

"At the hearing, the limited testimony of claimant and the testimony of the claimant's witnesses indicated that claimant was indeed permanently totally disabled. Dr. Morton indicated that after the 1971 surgery [claimant] became 100% disabled and this was related to the work-related cancer and not to the subsequent development of heart diseases. The Referee's observation of claimant during the course of the hearing also indicated that claimant was permanently totally disabled.
"I am of the opinion that claimant's status of permanent total disability was proved on the date of the hearing, July 9, 1986. The documentation indicates that claimant had a subsequent development of heart disease and what effect this had on claimant's present inability to work was not established until the date of the hearing. Conceivably, SAIF could have presented evidence that but for the heart disease the residuals from the work-related carcinoma would not have prevented her from employment."