Smicz v. Deschutes County 911 Service Dist.

Summary

The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed a Workers’ Compensation Board order denying Camille Smicz the occupational disease presumption for PTSD under ORS 656.802(7)(b). The court held that the statutory requirement of a preponderance of persuasive medical evidence permits the factfinder to consider persuasive medical evidence offered by both the claimant and the opposing party. The court also concluded that the Board’s determination was supported by substantial evidence and reason.

Holdings

1. ORS 656.802(7)(b) permits the factfinder to consider all persuasive medical evidence from a psychiatrist or psychologist proffered by either party when determining whether the claimant has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the statutory PTSD or acute-stress-disorder presumption applies.
2. The Workers’ Compensation Board’s determination that Smicz failed to establish by a preponderance of persuasive medical evidence that she met the PTSD criteria was supported by substantial evidence and substantial reason.

Questions Presented

1. Whether ORS 656.802(7)(b) permits the factfinder to consider persuasive medical evidence presented by both the claimant and the opposing party when determining whether the claimant established entitlement to the occupational-disease presumption.
2. Whether the Workers’ Compensation Board’s determination that Smicz failed to establish the presumption was supported by substantial evidence and substantial reason.

Disposition

affirmed