Legal Opinion

International Paper Co. v. Pearson

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided February 27, 1991No. WCB 87-06095; CA A65174PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWarren, P. J.

Employer seeks review of a Workers’ Compensation Board order that held employer responsible for certain medical services. The parties do not argue that the findings were not supported by substantial evidence. We review for errors of law. Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co., 90 Or App 200, 752 P2d 312 (1988). We affirm.

Claimant was compensably injured on March 21, 1983. On October 26, 1983, while on her way to her doctor’s office for treatment of the compensable injury, she was involved in an automobile accident, which traumatized the same body parts that had been injured in the industrial accident.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1988
  2. Fenton v. SAIF Corp.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1987
  3. Proctor v. Saif Corp.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1984

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Fimbres v. Gibbons Supply Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1993
  2. Pollock v. Tri-Met, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1996
  3. Sperry, Inc. v. WellsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1994

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

Powered by the Exa API