Case Name: In the Matter of the Compensation of Michael DeRoest, Claimant. Michael DeROEST, Petitioner, v. KEYSTONE RV COMPANY, Respondent
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2016-03-02
Citations: 276 Or. App. 698
Docket Number: 1201220; A156118
Parties: In the Matter of the Compensation of Michael DeRoest, Claimant. Michael DeROEST, Petitioner, v. KEYSTONE RV COMPANY, Respondent.
Judges: Before DeVore, Presiding Judge, and Flynn, Judge, and Schuman, Senior Judge.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 276
Pages: 698–699

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted September 17, 2015,
affirmed March 2, 2016
In the Matter of the Compensation of Michael DeRoest, Claimant. Michael DeROEST, Petitioner, v. KEYSTONE RV COMPANY, Respondent.
Workers’ Compensation Board
1201220; A156118
368 P3d 464
Gerald C. Doblie argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Doblie & Associates, PC.
Rebecca A. Watkins argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Lance M. Johnson and Sather, Byerly & Halloway, LLP.
Before DeVore, Presiding Judge, and Flynn, Judge, and Schuman, Senior Judge.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Claimant, who previously suffered a compensable work-related injury to his left foot, seeks review of an order of the Workers' Compensation Board, which concluded that claimant failed to prove he suffered a compensable aggravation of that injury. The board upheld employer's denial of the aggravation claim because it concluded that claimant did not prove an actual worsening of the accepted condition — "left cuboid fracture." On judicial review, claimant challenges the board's conclusion that the "actual worsening" requirement of the aggravation statute, ORS 656.273, focuses only on conditions previously identified in a notice of acceptance. We recently agreed with the board's construction of ORS 656.273, holding that "an aggravation, under ORS 656.273, may only occur upon a condition identified in a notice of acceptance." Nacoste v. Halton Co., 275 Or App 600, 607, 365 P3d 1098 (2015). Accordingly, we affirm the board's decision in this case.
Affirmed.
We reject without written discussion claimant's challenge to the board's refusal to award a penalty and attorney fee for conduct by employer that a dissenting board member viewed as a "discovery violation."