Permanent partial disability
Source:
Section 656.214 — Permanent partial disability, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors656.html.
Notes of Decisions
In general
Award is not to be divided into separate physical disability and loss of earning capacity components. Grossen v. Griffey & Laird Logging Co., 7 Or App 600, 492 P2d 820 (1972)
Loss of use is not measured exclusively by impairment to range of motion. Boyce v. Sambo’s Restaurant, 44 Or App 305, 605 P2d 1213 (1980)
Loss need not be solely due to physical disability, but can include loss resulting from psychological overlay. Mesa v. Barker Manufacturing, 66 Or App 161, 672 P2d 1378 (1983)
When pain has disabling effects, they must be considered in establishing awards for unscheduled permanent partial disability. Harwell v. Argonaut Ins. Co., 296 Or 505, 678 P2d 1202 (1984)
Workers’ Compensation Board must give reasoned explanation of why facts found led to conclusion that claimant was entitled to specific percentage of permanent partial disability. Matthies v. Tillamook County Creamery Assoc., 101 Or App 44, 788 P2d 1032 (1990); Brown v. Gold Beach Dairy Queen, 109 Or App 509, 820 P2d 830 (1991)
This section does not require that factors of age, education, impairment and adaptability necessarily affect extent of disability in every case, nor does it specify weight to be given those factors in particular situations. Harrison v. Taylor Lumbering & Treating, Inc., 111 Or App 325, 826 P2d 75 (1992)
Aggravations are measured by same standard that made condition originally compensable. Fred Meyer, Inc. v. Farrow, 122 Or App 164, 857 P2d 189 (1993)
Where one or more factors to be considered exceed zero, assignment of zero value to factors taken as whole does not fulfill requirement for modifying impairment. Carroll v. Boise Cascade Corp., 138 Or App 610, 910 P2d 1111 (1996)
Worker who has been released for work by attending physician or nurse practitioner, but who is unable to return to work for cause not related to injury, is not entitled to work disability. Suchi v. SAIF, 238 Or App 48, 241 P3d 1174 (2010), Sup Ct review denied
“Regular work” includes work that worker actually performs on steady or customary basis, including elective overtime. Thrifty Payless, Inc. v. Cole, 247 Or App 232, 269 P3d 76 (2011)
Where claimant’s contributing causes include accelerated aging effects from long-term smoking and mild degenerative conditions that are not part of compensable injury to lower back or legally cognizable preexisting conditions, contributing causes are not considered in impairment calculation. Schleiss v. SAIF, 354 Or 637, 317 P3d 244 (2013)
Method for calculating impairment in cases of combined conditions is exception to, and limitation on, general rule that employer pays compensation for full measure of workers’ permanent impairment if impairment “as a whole” is caused in material part by compensable injury. Caren v. Providence Health Sys. Or. (In re Caren), 365 Or 466, 446 P3d 67 (2019)
Scheduled disabilities
Medical diagnosis of condition is not always required to make out prima facie causal relationship between injury and condition. Volk v. Birdseye Div., 16 Or App 349, 518 P2d 672 (1974), Sup Ct review denied
If all claimant’s disabilities are scheduled, they cannot be combined to qualify claimant for unscheduled permanent total disability. Rencken v. SAIF, 17 Or App 210, 521 P2d 551 (1974)
Requirement that disability be rated based on loss due to industrial injury means that specified method for measuring hearing loss cannot include pre-existing loss. Nomeland v. City of Portland, 106 Or App 77, 806 P2d 175 (1991); Papen v. Willamina Lumber Co., 123 Or App 249, 859 P2d 1166 (1993), Sup Ct review denied
Where claimant’s award for hearing loss was originally based on binaural method, claimant could not later claim additional compensation based on monaural method. Wardell v. Smurfit Newsprint, 107 Or App 358, 812 P2d 21 (1991)
Requirement that vision loss involving both eyes be assessed as greater of monocular vision loss or binocular vision loss does not apply where condition is present only when both eyes are open. Gordon v. City of Portland, 144 Or App 471, 927 P2d 96 (1996)
Unscheduled disabilities
Earning capacity must be considered in connection with a worker’s handicap in obtaining and holding gainful employment in the broad field of general industrial occupations and not just in relationship to his occupation at any given time. Ford v. SAIF, 7 Or App 549, 492 P2d 491 (1971)
Notwithstanding that claimant suffered no loss of visual acuity from eye injury after maximum correction, where there was additional permanent and partial loss of use of claimant’s eye disability was compensable. Russell v. SAIF, 281 Or 353, 574 P2d 653 (1978)
Where claimant developed further disability from injury for which scheduled award was previously made, unscheduled award could be made where further disability was independent of scheduled disability and not intrinsic result of original injury. Woodman v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 289 Or 551, 614 P2d 1162 (1980)
COMPLETED CITATIONS: Hawes v. SAIF, 6 Or App 136, 486 P2d 1294 (1971)
Law Review Citations
52 OLR 190-200 (1973)
Up to date