Title: Perry v. SAIF Corporation

State: oregon

Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court

Document:

772 P.2d 418 (1989)
307 Or. 654
In the matter of the Compensation of Cleo F. PERRY, Claimant. Cleo F. Perry, Respondent On Review,
v.
SAIF CORPORATION and Rug Doctor, Petitioners On Review.
WCB 85-07195; CA A44205; SC S35811.

Supreme Court of Oregon, In Banc.
Decided April 18, 1989.
Argued and Submitted April 5, 1989.
Christine Chute, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for petitioners on review. On the petition were Dave Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen., Virginia L. Linder, Sol. Gen., and Darrell E. Bewley, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem.
Leo R. Probst, Portland, argued the cause for respondent on review.
PER CURIAM.
Claimant filed a claim alleging an aggravation under ORS 656.273(1), which provides:
The issue in dispute is whether claimant has established "worsened conditions" within the aggravation period simply because he was hospitalized for treatment of the underlying condition. The referee, as the factfinder, found no worsening. The Workers' Compensation Board on de novo review found no worsening.
The Court of Appeals agreed with the finding of the Workers' Compensation Board and the referee that there had been no worsening as a matter of fact, but in reliance on Gwynn v. SAIF, 304 Or. 345, 353, 745 P.2d 775 (1987), decided that an "aggravation under ORS 676.273" had occurred. Perry v. SAIF, 93 Or. App. 631, 634, 763 P.2d 736 (1988). The court erred in so applying Gwynn v. SAIF.
The Court of Appeals wrote:
In so holding, the Court of Appeals misapplied the Gwynn decision. The Court of Appeals read the above-quoted words "or becomes an inpatient at a hospital for treatment of that condition" to state an alternative test of aggravation independent of any worsening of the worker's "underlying condition." These words expressly referred to an alternative to total disability "as a result of worsening of the worker's condition from the original injury." As applied to this case, the Gwynn tests are whether the symptoms such as pain have caused loss of function of the body and resulted in loss of earning capacity. The mere fact that a claimant is hospitalized does not always signify a worsening. Worsening is a factual question.
The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals to determine if claimant's condition had worsened within the definition set forth in Gwynn v. SAIF, supra.