Title: Williams v. Gates, McDonald & Co.
Citation: 300 Or. 278, 709 P.2d 712
Docket Number: N/A
State: Oregon
Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court
Date: November 26, 1985

709 P.2d 712 (1985)
300 Or. 278
In the matter of the Compensation of Betty L. WILLIAMS, Claimant. Betty L. Williams, Petitioner On Review,
v.
GATES, McDonald &amp; Company, Respondent On Review.
WCB 80-10620; CA A32940; SC S31896.

Supreme Court of Oregon, In Banc.
Argued and Submitted October 1, 1985.
Decided November 26, 1985.
*713 James L. Edmunson, Eugene, argued the cause for petitioner on review. With him on the petition was Malagon &amp; Associates, Eugene.
Cynthia S.C. Shanahan, Portland, argued the cause for respondent on review. With her on the response were Schwabe, Williamson, Wyatt, Moore &amp; Roberts, and William H. Replogle, Portland.
Kevin L. Mannix, Portland, filed an Amicus Curiae brief on behalf of Ass'n of Workers' Compensation Defense Attys. With him on brief was Lindsay, Hart, Neil &amp; Weigler, Portland.
Robert K. Udziela, Portland, filed an Amicus Curiae brief on behalf of Oregon Trial Lawyers Ass'n. With him on brief was Pozzi, Wilson, Atchison, O'Leary &amp; Conboy, Portland.
ROBERTS, Justice.
Claimant seeks review of a Court of Appeals' decision holding that the long-term consequences resulting from an operation that was required as a preliminary procedure to the operation necessitated by the industrial injury were not compensable. We hold that the consequences are compensable, and therefore, reverse.
The following is taken from the Court of Appeals opinion:
In summary, the Court of Appeals found that the endarterectomy was necessarily performed to permit the discectomy, which all parties agree was necessary to treat the injury, and that the endarterectomy caused the "mental problems" identified in the Court of Appeals' decision. We accept those findings. Wheeler v. Boise Cascade, 298 Or. 452, 457, 693 P.2d 632 (1984); Sahnow v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 260 Or. 564, 491 P.2d 997 (1971).
The Court of Appeals then found that there was no causal connection between the compensable injury and the endarterectomy, *714 apparently because of a statement by Dr. Misko that "it is also true that, independent of her industrial injury, this patient should have had a right carotid endarterectomy." 73 Or. App. at 641, 700 P.2d 270. This, said the Court of Appeals, showed that there was "only a purely fortuitous chronological connection" between the industrial injury and the need for an endarterectomy. Id. That court then affirmed the denial of the claim for compensation for disability resulting from the mental problems.
We do not question that the claimant "should" have had an endarterectomy independent of her industrial injury. That is immaterial. There is absolutely no evidence in this record that claimant would have submitted to that operation then or ever, had it not been a necessary prelude to the required discectomy. There is no evidence to contradict Dr. Misko's original report that both operative procedures were integral parts of the planned surgery to claimant's neck; without the endarterectomy the discectomy could not take place.
Both operations were required for total medical treatment. Treatment was necessitated by the injury. The insurer is liable for the consequences flowing from the injury and treatment, even where such consequences are damaging rather than curative. McDonough v. National Hosp. Assn. 134 Or. 451, 461, 294 P. 351 (1930).[1]
For these reasons the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
[1]  The record in this case does not indicate the presence of malpractice and we do not mean to imply that there may have been malpractice.