Case Name: In the Matter of the Compensation of Gordon C. Green, Claimant. Gordon C. GREEN, Petitioner, v. PELTON CONCRETE, and SAIF Corporation, Respondents
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1991-05-20
Citations: 106 Or. App. 421
Docket Number: 86-09604; CA A63997
Parties: In the Matter of the Compensation of Gordon C. Green, Claimant. Gordon C. GREEN, Petitioner, v. PELTON CONCRETE, and SAIF Corporation, Respondents.
Judges: Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Rossman and De Muniz, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 106
Pages: 421–422

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted January 16,
reversed and remanded for reconsideration May 20, 1991
In the Matter of the Compensation of Gordon C. Green, Claimant. Gordon C. GREEN, Petitioner, v. PELTON CONCRETE, and SAIF Corporation, Respondents.
(86-09604; CA A63997)
807 P2d 344
Robert J. Neuberger, Portland, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Pozzi, Wilson, Atchison, O’Leary & Conboy, Portland.
Ann Kelley, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondents. With her on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.
Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Rossman and De Muniz, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Claimant seeks review of an order of the Workers' Compensation Board reversing the referee's decision that he is permanently and totally disabled. Although we agree with employer that substantial evidence supports the Board's findings concerning permanent and total disability, we reverse and remand to the Board, because there is a preliminary issue that must be decided.
From the outset, claimant has contended that the determination order, which awarded him 30 percent permanent partial disability for loss of use of his right leg, was inadequate. In the alternative, he contended that the order had been entered prematurely. We conclude that he preserved the alternative issue for Board review. Because the referee found that claimant was permanently and totally disabled, she held that she did not need to address whether the claim had been prematurely closed. The Board, in reversing the referee, also failed to address whether the claim had been prematurely closed. Contrary to the referee's reasoning, whether the claim was prematurely closed is a question that must be decided before any award of benefits can be made.
Reversed and remanded for reconsideration.