Willamette Law Online

Oregon Court of Appeals


ListPreviousNext


Balcom v. Knowledge Learning Enterprises

Summarized by: 

Date Filed: 05-15-2013
Case #: A148227
Sercombe, J., for the Court; Ortega, P.J.; and Hadlock, J.
Full Text Opinion: http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A148227.pdf

Workers Compensation: Pursuant to ORCP 5.45(1), for consideration on judicial review an argument must be preserved in the lower court proceedings. To properly preserve an argument for consideration upon judicial review a party must provide the trial court with a specific explanation of her objection so as to ensure that the trial court can clearly identify the alleged error.

The claimant sought judicial review of an order of the Workers Compensation Board denying her combined condition claim for foraminal stenosis. On review, the claimant argued the Board committed a legal error in finding persuasive one doctor's medical opinion that supported denial of her combined condition since that doctor did not believe her work injury was a material cause of her disability or need for treatment. The employer argued that under ORCP 5.45(1), claimant failed to preserve that argument for judicial review during the administrative proceedings. To properly preserve an argument for consideration upon judicial review a party must provide the trial court with a specific explanation of her objection so as to ensure that the trial court can clearly identify the alleged error.  The Court held the claimant's argument was more than a mere evidentiary debate, and was a legal position or objection that should have been preserved in the record for consideration by the Board before being presented for judicial review. The Court found the claimant failed to preserve this argument in the record before the administrative court. Affirmed.