Case Name: In the Matter of the Compensation of Barbara Johnson, Claimant. Barbara JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. EASTERN OREGON STATE COLLEGE and SAIF Corporation, Respondents
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1999-04-14
Citations: 159 Or. App. 663
Docket Number: WCB Nos. 95-07224, 95-05888; CA A98381
Parties: In the Matter of the Compensation of Barbara Johnson, Claimant. Barbara JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. EASTERN OREGON STATE COLLEGE and SAIF Corporation, Respondents.
Judges: Before Landau, Presiding Judge, and Deits, Chief Judge, and Wollheim, Judge.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 159
Pages: 663–664

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted April 22, 1998,
affirmed April 14, 1999
In the Matter of the Compensation of Barbara Johnson, Claimant. Barbara JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. EASTERN OREGON STATE COLLEGE and SAIF Corporation, Respondents.
(WCB Nos. 95-07224, 95-05888; CA A98381)
978 P2d 451
Dale C. Johnson argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Malagon, Moore, Johnson & Jensen.
David L. Runner, Special Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General.
Before Landau, Presiding Judge, and Deits, Chief Judge, and Wollheim, Judge.
PER CURIAM
Wollheim, J., vice Riggs, P. J., resigned.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Claimant seeks review of an order of the Workers' Compensation Board reversingan administrative law judge's (AL J) order awarding claimant permanent total disability for her work-related condition. She assigns error to the Board's holding that the ALJ erred in considering vocational expert testimony and claimant's testimony regarding her motivation to seek work on the ground that the evidence had not been offered in the reconsideration proceeding before the Department of Consumer and Business Services (DCBS). ORS 656.283(7).
Claimant's first contention, that the procedure set forth in ORS 656.283(7) violates her right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, has been addressed and rejected in Koskela v. Willamette Industries, Inc., 159 Or App 229, 978 P2d 1018 (1999). Claimant failed to preserve her second assignment of error before the Board that retroactive application of ORS 656.283(7) violated her federal constitutional right to due process. Accordingly, we do not address it.
Affirmed.