holding that, in “uncomplicated” cases, medical testimony is not required to establish that precipitating workplace event was the cause of the claimant’s injury
How later courts described this case
- holding that, in “uncomplicated” cases, medical testimony is not required to establish that precipitating workplace event was the cause of the claimant’s injury
- endorsing the “settled rule” that where a worker’s injuries are of such character as to require skilled and professional persons to determine the cause and extent thereof, the question is one of science and must necessarily be determined by testimony of skilled, professional persons
- holding that, *407 in “uncomplicated” cases, medical testimony is not required to establish that precipitating workplace event was the cause of the claimant’s injury
- holding that, except for “uncomplicated situation [s],” expert testimony is generally necessary to establish medical causation
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ON PETITION FOR ALLOWANCE OF ATTORNEY’S FEE
*429 PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff has moved for allowance of an attorney’s fee for the services of his attorney in this court.
Authority to make such allowance does not exist unless it is found in the statute: Adair v. McAtee, 236 Or 391, 396 , 385 P2d 621 , 388 P2d 748 ; Gorman et ux v. Jones et ux, 232 Or 416, 420 , 375 P2d 821 . There are two sections of the Workmen’s Compensation Law providing for the allowance of an attorney’s fee by the courts. ORS 656.386 (1), formerly 656.588 (1), authorizes the circuit court to allow a reasonable attorney’s fee where a claimant prevails in an appeal to the circuit court from a Board order (formerly a Commission order). ORS 656.301 (2), formerly ORS 656.292 (2), provides that on appeal by the Department (formerly by the Commission) or an employer from an adverse decision of the circuit court, if the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed, the claimant shall be allowed an attorney’s fee to be fixed by the court. At no time has there been a statute authorizing the court to allow an attorney’s fee where the claimant appeals to this court from an adverse judgment of the circuit court and is successful.
It follows that, whether the former or present statute be applicable, the motion cannot be allowed.
On remand to the circuit court the plaintiff will be entitled to the award of an attorney’s fee for services of his attorney in that court.
The motion is denied.