Case Name: HORTON, Petitioner-Cross-Respondent, v. MRS. SMITH'S PIE COMPANY, Respondent-Cross-Petitioner
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1979-02-20
Citations: 38 Or. App. 575
Docket Number: WCB 76-6988, CA 11473
Parties: HORTON, Petitioner—Cross-Respondent, v. MRS. SMITH’S PIE COMPANY, Respondent—Cross-Petitioner.
Judges: Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Gillette and Roberts, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 38
Pages: 575–577

Head Matter:
Argued December 22, 1978,
reversed and remanded February 20, 1979
HORTON, Petitioner—Cross-Respondent, v. MRS. SMITH’S PIE COMPANY, Respondent—Cross-Petitioner.
(WCB 76-6988, CA 11473)
590 P2d 791
David W: Hittle, Salem, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs wás Dye & Olson, Salem.
L. Edward Robbins, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Souther, Spaulding, Kinsey, Williamson & Schwabe, and Delbert J. Brenneman and Ridgway K. Foley, Jr., Portland.
Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Gillette and Roberts, Judges.
GILLETTE, J.

Opinion:
GILLETTE, J.
In this Workers' Compensation case, the claimant appeals the Workers' Compensation Board's reduction to 15% unscheduled permanent disability of a referee's order granting 50% disability. We reverse and reinstate the referee's award.
Recitation of the facts is not warranted. See Hoag v. Duraflake, 37 Or App 103, 585 P2d 1149 (1978). The case is a factual one, hinging almost entirely on the credibility of claimant. If the claimant's testimony is to be believed, she is substantially disabled. The referee specifically found her to be credible. The Board found otherwise. Examining the evidence relied upon by the Board, we find it no more persuasive than the claimant's testimony. This is a classic situation justifying deference to him who saw the witness. See Steiner v. SAIF, 34 Or App 317, 578 P2d 497 (1978). We so defer.
Reversed and remanded with instructions to reinstate the referee's order.