Legal Opinion

Asten-Hill Co. v. Armstrong

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided February 21, 1990No. WCB 86-02776; CA A51176PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJoseph, C. J.

Employer seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board affirming the referee’s decision that claimant’s chronic rhinitis condition was worsened by his working environment and is, therefore, compensable. Reviewing for substantial evidence, we reverse and remand. ORS 656.298(6); ORS 183.482(8).

Claimant worked for employer as a weaver for seven years. He was exposed to dust and fibers from the milling of asbestos, cotton, fiberglass and acrylic materials. Employer no longer uses asbestos and cotton fibers, but 20 to 50 percent of the material presently used is fiberglass or…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1988
  2. Stupfel v. Edward Hines Lumber Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1979
  3. Devereaux v. North Pacific InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1985

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. SAIF Corp. v. PepperlingCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2010
  2. Skochenko v. Weyerhaeuser Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1993
  3. SAIF Corp. v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2016
  4. Armenta v. PCC Structural, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2012
  5. Saif Corp. v. BryantCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2001

2 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