56 Van Natta 369 (2004). DANIEL P. SANBORN, Claimant.

Case DateFebruary 04, 2004
CourtOregon
Oregon Workers Compensation 2004. 56 Van Natta 369 (2004). DANIEL P. SANBORN, Claimant 369In the Matter of the Compensation of DANIEL P. SANBORN, ClaimantWCB Case No. 01-02841, 01-02500, 01-02498, 01-02494, 01-01420, 01-01419, 00-09707, 00-07614, 00-07294, 00-05076ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION Welch Bruun and Green, Claimant Attorneys Hoffman Hart and Wagner, Defense Attorneys Sather Byerly and Holloway, Defense Attorneys Johnson Nyburg and Andersen, Defense Attorneys James B Northrop, SAIF Legal, Defense Attorneys Vavrosky MacColl et al, Defense Attorneys Scheminske et al, Defense Attorneys Cavanagh and Zipse, Defense AttorneysReviewing Panel: Members Lowell and Kasubhai.The SAIF Corporation, on behalf of Oregon Wire Products (SAIF/Oregon Wire), requests reconsideration of our January 13, 2004 order that: (1) set aside its denial of responsibility for claimant's occupational disease claim for hearing loss; and (2) awarded an assessed fee of $1,000 for claimant's counsel's services on review, payable by Oregon Wire. Contending that, contrary to our conclusion, the medical opinion of Dr. Bakos established that subsequent employment actually contributed to claimant's hearing loss, SAIF/Oregon Wire argues that responsibility should have been placed on Safeco Insurance on behalf of Advanced Metal Products (Safeco/Advanced Metal). In addition, SAIF/Oregon Wire argues that, if claimant's attorney was entitled to an assessed fee for services on Board review, that fee would be payable under ORS 656.382(2) by the party that requested review (SAIF/Walsh and Sons). For the following reasons, we disagree with SAIF/Oregon Wire's contentions. In our original order, we determined that Dr. Bakos' opinion, viewed in its entirety, was not sufficient to establish that "post-SAIF/Oregon Wire" employment actually contributed to the hearing loss condition. Citing portions of Dr. Bakos' deposition testimony, SAIF/Oregon Wire contends that we incorrectly interpreted that opinion and that it does establish contribution by "post-Oregon Wire" employment. We disagree. Dr. Bakos testified at one point that work activity at...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT