- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Workers Compensation
- Date Filed: 10-30-2019
- Case #: A166090
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Lagesen, P.J. for the Court; DeVore, J.; & James, J.
Claimant petitioned for review the Worker’s Compensation Board. Claimant appealed the Board's determination that Claimant was not entitled to penalties and attorney fees after the Board rejected Claimant’s argument that a form SAIF provided to his physician did not have the correct Workers’ Compensation Division standard for a “chronic condition” impairment. In response, SAIF argued the form “was sufficient to communicate [the] standard.” The standard in the form ("more than 2/3 of the time") was not the same as the WCD interpretation because under that interpretation, “a person is significantly limited in the repetitive use of a body part if the person ‘can use the body part repetitively for up to, but no more than, two-thirds of the time.’” Broeke v. SAIF, 300 Or App 91 (2019). The Court found that viewing the record as a whole, a reasonable person could not find that SAIF's form referred to WCD's interpretation of the chronic condition standard. Therefore, the Court held that the Board erred. Reversed and remanded.