Legal Opinion

Murdoch v. SAIF Corp.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided October 15, 2008No. 0507098, 0603782; A135297PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSchuman, J.

Claimant seeks judicial review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board (board) denying his occupational disease claim. At issue is whether the board correctly characterized claimant’s diabetes, a condition unrelated to employment, as the major contributing cause of the disease that required amputation of his toe, thereby rendering the amputation noncompensable. Claimant contends that the diabetes merely rendered him “more susceptible to” the disease and was therefore not a contributing cause of it. ORS 656.005(24)(c). We conclude that the board’s decision is not supported by…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Drew v. Psychiatric Security Review BoardOregon Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Karjalainen v. Curtis Johnston & Pennywise, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2006
  3. Young v. Hermiston Good SamaritanCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2008
  4. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. v. SpurgeonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991
  5. Portland Adventist Medical Center v. BuckallewCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1993

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Corkum v. Bi-Mart Corp.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2015
  2. Dynea USA, Inc. v. FairbanksCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2011
  3. SAIF Corp. v. DeMarcoCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2015
  4. Saif Corp. v. Dunn (In re Comp. of Dunn)Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2019
  5. Torres v. SAIFCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2022

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

Powered by the Exa API