Case Name: In the Matter of the Compensation of James G. Heiden, Claimant. HEIDEN, Petitioner, v. DON POLLOCK INVESTMENTS et al, Respondents
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1988-10-12
Citations: 93 Or. App. 425
Docket Number: WCB 86-01669; CA A45336
Parties: In the Matter of the Compensation of James G. Heiden, Claimant. HEIDEN, Petitioner, v. DON POLLOCK INVESTMENTS et al, Respondents.
Judges: Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Newman and Deits, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 93
Pages: 425–426

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted March 21,
remanded for reconsideration October 12, 1988
In the Matter of the Compensation of James G. Heiden, Claimant. HEIDEN, Petitioner, v. DON POLLOCK INVESTMENTS et al, Respondents.
(WCB 86-01669; CA A45336)
762 P2d 346
Emerson G. Fisher, Portland, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Garry L. Kahn, P.C., Portland.
Mildred J. Carmack, Portland, argued the cause for respondents. With her on the brief was Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, Portland.
Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Newman and Deits, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Claimant seeks review of an order of the Workers' Compensation Board that reduced the permanent partial disability awarded by the referee. The petition for review was filed after July 20,1987, and our review is as specified in ORS 656.298. See Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co., 90 Or App 200, 752 P2d 312 (1988).
The Board's order is insufficient for effective review. It contains no explanation or reasoning about why the referee's decision was altered. The order does not satisfy the standards for review set out in Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co., supra.
Remanded for reconsideration.