Columbia Heating and Cooling, Inc. v. Bucher

Annotate this Case

FILED: November 26, 2003

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

 

In the Matter of the Compensation of
Jason A. Bucher, Claimant.

COLUMBIA HEATING AND COOLING, INC.,
and FREMONT-CAMBRIDGE,

Petitioners,

           v.

JASON A. BUCHER
and WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD,

Respondents.

01-00272; A118555

Judicial Review from Workers' Compensation Board.

Argued and submitted October 20, 2003.

Deborah L. Sather argued the cause for petitioners. With her on the briefs were Tracy J. White and Sather, Byerly & Holloway.

Gerald C. Doblie argued the cause for respondent Jason A. Bucher. With him on the brief was Doblie & Associates.

           No appearance for respondent Workers' Compensation Board.

Before Edmonds, Presiding Judge, and Haselton and Wollheim, Judges.

           PER CURIAM

Affirmed.

                      PER CURIAM

                      In this workers' compensation case, petitioners argue that the Workers' Compensation Board committed two errors. Petitioners first argue that the board erred in determining that claimant did not have a combined condition and second argues that the board abused its discretion by issuing its order in the absence of a board member with the "background and understanding as to the concerns of employers." ORS 656.712(1). We affirm.

                      The first assignment of error concerns the board's finding that claimant did not have a combined condition. The board found that claimant's two conditions, a preexisting right shoulder condition and a compensable right shoulder strain, did not combine. There is substantial evidence in the record supporting the board's findings.

                      Our recent decision, Fred Meyer Stores, Inc. v. Ernst, 195Or App 525, ___ P3d ___ (2003), decided petitioners' second assignment of error adversely to them. For the reasons stated in Ernst, we reject that assignment of error.

                       Affirmed.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.