Legal Opinion

Ross v. Flightcraft, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided January 31, 1990No. WCB 87-15924; CA A60060Published

1Opinion of the CourtGraber, P. J.

Claimant seeks review in this workers’ compensation case. We review for substantial evidence and errors of law, ORS 656.298(6), and affirm.

The referee set aside employer’s denial of compensability on claimant’s occupational disease claim. On de novo review, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed. It concluded that claimant had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence, see Hutcheson v. Weyerhaeuser, 288 Or 51, 55-56, 602 P2d 268 (1979), that his employment was the major contributing cause of his hearing loss. See former ORS 656.802(1)(a); Dethlefs v. Hyster Co., 295 Or 298, 310,…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1988
  2. Dethlefs v. Hyster Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1983
  3. Hutcheson v. Weyerhaeuser Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1979
  4. Johnston v. James River Corp.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1988
  5. Kassahn v. Publishers Paper Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1985

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

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

Powered by the Exa API