Court Opinion

ID: 9564435
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:00:43.584261+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:24.486450
License: Public Domain

DEITS, P. J.,
dissenting.
For the reasons I discuss in my dissenting opinion in Silveira v. Larch Enterprises, 133 Or App 297, 891 P2d 697 (1995), I believe that the inquiry into the compensability of claimant’s disease in this case must be limited to his Oregon employment. Because the Board’s finding that claimant’s work exposure while employed by any Oregon employer could not have contributed to his disease is supported by substantial evidence, I would agree with the Board that claimant’s condition is not compensable in Oregon. Accordingly, I dissent.