Case Name: BUCHANAN, Respondent, v. ALLEN-HAY MOTOR COMPANY, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1975-04-14
Citations: 21 Or. App. 90
Docket Number: No. 7039
Parties: BUCHANAN, Respondent, v. ALLEN-HAY MOTOR COMPANY, Appellant.
Judges: Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Fort and Denecke, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 21
Pages: 90–91

Head Matter:
Argued March 17,
affirmed April 14, 1975
BUCHANAN, Respondent, v. ALLEN-HAY MOTOR COMPANY, Appellant.
(No. 7039)
533 P2d 824
Thomas Cavanaugh, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Schouboe & Cavanaugh, P.C., Portland.
Donald Wilson, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Keith E. Tichenor and Pozzi, Wilson & Atchison, Portland.
Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Fort and Denecke, Judges.

Opinion:
SCHWAB, C. J.
This is an occupational disease claim under the Workmen's Compensation Law. The referee held that chronic bronchitis suffered by the workman was not compensable. The Workmen's Compensation Board and the circuit court, with whom we agree, held that it was.
The claimant, who was and is a heavy smoker, sought medical consultation and treatment for a respiratory problem which was diagnosed as chronic bronchitis. His employment involved exposure to dust from sanding and grinding operations on metal and plastic substances, and exposure to fumes from paints and fillers. Claimant testified that after he left this work at the suggestion of his doctor, although he continued to smoke heavily, his condition improved. The referee did not question claimant's credibility on this point. Two doctors, one an osteopath, contended that claimant's exposure to the dust and fumes incident to his occupation, materially aggravated his condition. A third doctor, a specialist in diseases of the heart and lungs, was of the opinion that claimant's bronchitis was not materially affected by the dust and fumes, but was more likely due primarily to his heavy smoking. As indicated above, in view of claimant's testimony, which the referee found credible, that his condition improved when he discontinued his exposure to dust and fumes, we find that the evidence preponderates in favor of the claimant.
Affirmed.