Hallmark Fisheries v. Harvey, 788 P.2d 471 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). · Go Syfert
Hallmark Fisheries v. Harvey, 788 P.2d 471 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of the Compensation of Michael J. Harvey, HALLMARK FISHERIES
v.
HARVEY
87-06987; CA A61323.
Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Mar 7, 1990.
Published opinion
788 P.2d 471
Paul L. Roess, Portland, argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the brief was Acker, Underwood, Norwood & Hiefield, Portland., James L. Edmunson, Eugene, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Malagon, Moore & Johnson, Eugene.
Edmonds, Graber, Riggs.
Published
PER CURIAM

Employer seeks review of an order of the Worker’s Compensation Board awarding claimant temporary total disability (TTD) benefits. Claimant injured his back while working for employer. He filed a claim and received TTD. He returned to work before his claim was closed, but was fired for smoking marijuana on the work site two days later. On March 5, 1987, while still unemployed, claimant was declared by his treating physician to be physically unable to work, due to his work-related injury.

Employer argues that the Board’s order is inadequate for judicial review, because there was no finding of a “worsening” which, according to employer, is required to trigger reinstatement of TTD. Proof of a subsequent “worsening” is required only after a claim has been initially closed. ORS 656.273; Rodgers v. Weyerhaeuser Company, 88 Or App 458, 460, 745 P2d 820 (1987). Claimant was working for employer when he suffered the disabling injury. As of March 5, he was entitled to TTD until he became medically stationary and was released for work. See Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Kepford, 100 Or App 410, 786 P2d 745 (1990).

Affirmed.[1]

1

Employer also argues that there is not substantial evidence to support the Board’s findings. We disagree.