Legal Opinion

Fuls v. SAIF Corp.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided July 27, 1994No. WCB 91-01005, 90-17213; CA A76999PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDeits, P. J.

Claimant seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board denying the compensability of his conversion reaction. The Board denied compensability on the ground that the conditions that caused his conversion reaction were “generally inherent in every working situation.” ORS 656.802(3)(b). We review for errors of law and substantial evidence, ORS 656.298(6), and affirm.

We take the facts as found by the referee and adopted by the Board. In 1976, claimant sustained an on-the-job injury. Multidiagnostic tests were carried out between 1976 and 1985 which revealed no pathological,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Mathel v. Josephine CountyOregon Supreme Court · 1994
  2. DiBrito v. SAIF Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1994
  3. SAIF Corp. v. HukariCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Fuls v. SAIF Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Whitlock v. Klamath County School DistrictCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1999
  3. Whitlock v. Klamath County School DistrictCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1999

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API