Court Opinion

ID: 9609692
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:30:09.241539+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:51.839176
License: Public Domain

THORNTON, J.,
dissenting.
My review of this record convinces me that claimant has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that his alcoholism and physical and mental breakdown constituted a compensable occupational disease arising out of and in the course and scope of his employment. Contrary to the view of the evidence taken by the majority, the evidence persuades me that claimant’s condition did not result from on-the-job stress.
Unlike the claimants in James v. SAIF, 290 Or 343, 624 P2d 565 (1981), and Paresi v. SAIF, 290 Or 365, 624 P2d 572 (1981), which the majority relies upon, this claimant for the most part created his own problems and his own stresses. There have been a number of similar cases involving claimed on-the-job stress. In each case we concluded after a de novo review of the record that the claimant had not established by a preponderance of the evidence an occupational disease (or industrial injury). These include the following: Friesen v. Gould Inc., 18 Or App 120, 523 P2d 1285 (1974), where a bookkeeper-clerical worker complained of work stress related to her immediate supervisor, which allegedly cause a nervous upset; Williams v. SAIF, 36 Or App 211, 584 P2d 327, rev den 284 Or 235 (1978), where an administrative official in the Bureau of Labor complained of work stress which allegedly produced what amounted to an occupational disease. Another case involving in part claimed work stresses incident to the practice of law, and in which we also rejected a claim of work-connected disability, is Giovanini v. SAIF, 35 Or App 352, 581 P2d 139 (1978). In Giovanini this court affirmed without opinion a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board denying compensation where claimant had suffered *579a myocardial infarction after an extended period of heavy legal work which was followed by a violent family argument after he had returned home in the evening.
A claim of emotional stress was also involved in Robb v. Employment Div., 54 Or App 471, 635 P2d 392 (1981), an unemployment compensation case. This court affirmed a decision of the EAB which held that claimant had failed to establish that her stress problems were of such gravity that she had no alternative but to resign her employment and denied her unemployment compensation claim.
On the basis of the above authorities, in my view it would be an unwarranted expansion of workers compensation to rule in the case at bar that claimant is presently suffering from a bona fide occupational disease and to charge these claim costs to the State Accident Insurance Fund.
For the above reasons, I respectfully dissent.