McDermott v. SAIF Corp.

FLYNN, J. pro tempore,

dissenting.

I write in dissent because I disagree with a fundamental proposition that the majority assumes to be true— that the director’s rule for apportioning impairment is consistent with its statutory mandate to award compensation for permanent loss of use or function “due to the compensa-ble industrial injury.” 286 Or App at 411. As I understand both the Supreme Court’s analysis in Schleiss v. SAIF, 354 Or 637, 317 P3d 244 (2013), and the Supreme Court’s historical construction of loss “due to” the compensable injury, that phrase refers to the entire impairment if it…