Opinion

Porras v. Castle & Cooke, Inc.

91 Or. App. 526
755 P.2d 154
1988 Ore. App. LEXIS 1741

Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
Filed: Jun 15, 1988
Status: Published
On the bench: Graber, Hoomissen
Cited by: 1 cases
Authority: More cited than 61.6%

The opinion

PER CURIAM

Claimant seeks review of a Workers’ Compensation Board order that affirmed the portion of the referee’s order awarding her 85 percent unscheduled permanent partial disability and modified the portion of the referee’s order regarding the date she became medically stationary. The petition for judicial review was filed on August 19, 1987. The scope of review, therefore, requires us to determine if the Board order is supported by substantial evidence in the record. Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co., 90 Or App 200, 205 , 752 P2d 312 (1988). Because the Board order is inadequate for judicial review under the standards in Armstrong, 1 we remand to the Board for reconsideration.

Remanded for reconsideration.

The portion of the referee’s order that the Board affirmed is also inadequate for judicial review.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.