Burden of proving compensability and nature and extent of disability
Source:
Section 656.266 — Burden of proving compensability and nature and extent of disability, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors656.html.
Notes of Decisions
Claimant must prove by preponderance of evidence that workplace exposure is major cause of occupational disease, but need not eliminate all other possible causes. Magana v. Wilbanks International, 112 Or App 134, 826 P2d 1058 (1992)
Diagnosis based on exclusion of other causes is insufficient only if specific evidence of work-related causation is absent. Bronco Cleaners v. Velazquez, 141 Or App 295, 917 P2d 539 (1996); Seeley v. Sisters of Providence, 179 Or App 723, 41 P3d 1093 (2002)
Disproving that cause of injury is idiopathic is permissible means of establishing inference that cause of injury is unexplained and that injury is therefore compensable as neutral-risk injury. McTaggart v. Time Warner Cable, 170 Or App 491, 16 P3d 1154 (2000), Sup Ct review denied
Although worker retains burden of proof of disability on appeal, burden of identifying and establishing error of appealed decision rests on party seeking modification. Marvin Wood Products v. Callow, 171 Or App 175, 14 P3d 686 (2000)
For combined condition injury claims other than those involving occupational disease, employer bears burden of proving that claimant’s otherwise compensable injury is not, or is no longer, major contributing cause of claimant’s combined condition. Washington County v. Jansen, 248 Or App 335, 273 P3d 278 (2012)
For combined condition injury claims involving occupational disease, claimant bears burden of proving that compensable injury is not, or is no longer, major contributing cause of claimant’s combined condition. Washington County v. Jansen, 248 Or App 335, 273 P3d 278 (2012)
To establish that fall is unexplained, claimant must establish that there is no nonspeculative explanation for fall. Sheldon v. US Bank, 364 Or 831, 441 P3d 21 (2019)
Up to date