Legal Opinion

Crowder v. Alumaflex

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided September 29, 1999No. 94-12846; CA A95865PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtArmstrong, J.

Claimant seeks review of a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board that denied his claim for increased permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits under the 1995 amendment to ORS 656.214(6). The Board denied the claim on the ground that claimant had not raised the issue of the PPD rate on reconsideration of the determination order in which the PPD rate had been applied. Claimant also challenges the Board’s determination that he failed to prove that his compensable injury was the major contributing cause of his current psychological condition.

The following facts are undisputed. Claimant…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & IndustriesOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Drews v. EBI CompaniesOregon Supreme Court · 1990
  3. Volk v. America West AirlinesCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1995
  4. Matter of Marriage of DentonOregon Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Nero v. City of TualatinCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1996

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Santos v. Caryall TransportCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2000
  2. Santos v. Caryall TransportCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1999
  3. SAIF Corp. v. SantosCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2004
  4. Pietrzykowski v. Albertsons, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2005
  5. Pietrzykowski v. Albertsons, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2007

3 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