Legal Opinion

King v. Building Supply Discount

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided February 22, 1995No. 92-12157; CA A82403PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDe Muniz, J.

Claimant seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board determining that he has failed to establish the compensability of his coronary artery disease.

Claimant has had two compensable heart attacks. When he had his first heart attack in 1977, doctors also diagnosed coronary artery disease. Claimant had coronary bypass surgery, which apparently was not treated as a part of the compensable claim. In holding that the 1977 heart attack was compensable, the referee noted in a 1978 order that claimant’s underlying coronary artery disease “is of course not in issue.” When claimant had a…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Drews v. EBI CompaniesOregon Supreme Court · 1990
  2. Altamirano v. Woodburn Nursery, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1995
  3. Weyerhaeuser Co. v. WarrilowCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1989

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Jeld-Wen, Inc. v. BartzCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1996
  2. Reynolds Metals v. MendenhallCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1995
  3. SAIF Corp. v. RickerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2002
  4. King v. Building Supply DiscountCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1996
  5. King v. Building Supply DiscountCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1996

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

Powered by the Exa API