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.