Easton v. SAIF

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Workers Compensation
  • Date Filed: 07-02-2014
  • Case #: A151100
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Egan, J. for the Court; Armstrong, P.J.; & Nakamoto, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Workers' Compensation Board compensability determinations for proposed diagnostic procedures should refer to Claimant’s compensable injury.

Egan sought judicial review of a Workers’ Compensation Board (board) decision not to compensate Egan for a diagnostic procedure. The board assessed the compensability of the claim by reference to an “accepted condition.” Claimant argued that the law requires the board to assess the compensability of the procedure by reference to the procedure’s relationship with the “compensable injury”. The Court held that because diagnostic procedures are meant to discover conditions not yet discovered, and that under the proper legal analysis stated in SAIF v. Carlos-Macias (262 Or App 629), the compensability determination for proposed diagnostic procedures should refer to Claimant’s compensable injury. Reversed and remanded.

Advanced Search