Case Name: In the Matter of the Compensation of Shirley B. Johnson, Claimant. JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. STATE ACCIDENT INSURANCE FUND CORPORATION, Respondent
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1982-08-24
Citations: 55 Or. App. 638
Docket Number: No. 79-7925, CA A20259
Parties: In the Matter of the Compensation of Shirley B. Johnson, Claimant. JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. STATE ACCIDENT INSURANCE FUND CORPORATION, Respondent.
Judges: Before Gillette, Presiding Judge, and Roberts and Young, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 55
Pages: 638–640

Head Matter:
On petitioner’s reconsideration filed December 9,
reconsideration allowed; former opinion filed August 24 (53 Or App 627, 633 P2d 17) withdrawn;
affirmed (54 Or App 620, 635 P2d 1053) November 9, 1981;
former opinion modified and adhered to January 25,
petition for review denied April 27, 1982 (293 Or Or 103)
In the Matter of the Compensation of Shirley B. Johnson, Claimant. JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. STATE ACCIDENT INSURANCE FUND CORPORATION, Respondent.
(No. 79-7925, CA A20259)
639 P2d 137
Allan H. Coons and Coons and Hall, Eugene, for petition.
Before Gillette, Presiding Judge, and Roberts and Young, Judges.
ROBERTS, J.

Opinion:
ROBERTS, J.
We have granted reconsideration in this case to respond to petitioner's contention that we applied the wrong standard of proof in her workers' compensation claim. Petitioner points to language in the next-to-last paragraph of the opinion in which we stated that the two doctors who testified " could not say with any medical certainty that her work caused any acceleration or worsening of the underlying condition." Petitioner maintains that "certainty" is not required. Petitioner is correct. We stated clearly, earlier in the opinion, that we affirmed the Board's finding that claimant had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that her work had caused a worsening of her underlying disease. 54 Or App at 623. See also, Hutcheson v. Weyerhaeuser, 288 Or 51, 602 P2d 268 (1979). Our paraphrasing of the doctors' testimony did not change the quantum of proof. However, because the wording of our former opinion may be misleading, the paragraph at issue is amended to read:
"The two doctors who testified by deposition as to claimant's condition stated clearly and repeatedly, in response to precise questioning by claimant's attorney, that, although claimant's symptoms were increased, they could not say that her work caused any acceleration or worsening of the underlying condition. The Board's denial was therefore correct."
Petition for reconsideration granted; former opinion modified and adhered to.