SAIF v. Owens
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED: March 14, 2012 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON In the Matter of the Compensation of Floyd A. Owens, Claimant. SAIF CORPORATION and SWANSON GROUP MFG LLG, Petitioners, v. FLOYD A. OWENS, Respondent. Workers' Compensation Board 0807105 A145552 On petitioners' petition for reconsideration filed January 12, 2012. Opinion filed December 29, 2011. 247 Or App 402, ___ P3d ___. Julie Masters, Appellate Counsel, for petition. Before Haselton, Presiding Judge, and Armstrong, Judge, and Duncan, Judge. PER CURIAM Reconsideration allowed; former opinion clarified and adhered to as clarified. 1 PER CURIAM 2 In our original opinion in this case, we held that, in applying the 3 "preponderance of the medical evidence" standard of ORS 656.726(4)(f)(B) to determine 4 a claimant's impairment rating, "the entire universe of medical evidence that may be 5 considered consists of the medical arbiter's report, * * * the opinion of the attending 6 physician, * * * and any physicians' report in which the attending physician concurs." 7 SAIF v. Owens, 247 Or App 402, 409, ___ P3d ___ (2011). We explicitly rejected 8 SAIF's contention that the pertinent statutes merely limit the physicians who may provide 9 impairment findings, but do not otherwise limit the medical evidence that may be 10 considered in determining a claimant's impairment. SAIF contends that we were wrong 11 in so narrowing the scope of the record that may be considered for purposes of rating 12 impairment and that, even if other physicians' findings of impairment may not be 13 considered, other physicians' opinions may be considered in evaluating the findings of 14 those who are authorized by statute to make findings. SAIF has not presented any 15 argument in its petition that leads us to conclude that we were incorrect in our conclusion 16 that no additional medical evidence may be considered, even if only for the purpose of 17 evaluating the attending physician's findings of impairment. 18 SAIF also contends that our original opinion failed to make clear that our 19 holding related only to the evidence that may be considered for purposes of rating 20 impairment and erroneously suggested that additional evidence should not be a part of the 21 record. See 247 Or App at 407. SAIF is correct. Our opinion relates only to the extent 22 to which other medical evidence may be considered for purposes of rating impairment 1 1 and should not be understood to require exclusion of any evidence from the record. Reconsideration allowed; former opinion clarified and adhered to as 2 3 clarified. 2
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.
