# Chavez v. Boise Cascade Corporation

> Oregon Supreme Court · April 18, 1989 · 307 Or. 632

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9624766

## Case

- **Full name:** CHAVEZ, Respondent on Review, v. BOISE CASCADE CORPORATION, Petitioner on Review
- **Court:** Oregon Supreme Court
- **Decided:** April 18, 1989
- **Citations:** 307 Or. 632; 772 P.2d 409
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Peterson
- **Judges:** Peterson, Linde, Carson, Jones, Gillette, Fadeley
- **Cited by:** 27 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9624766

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that preclusive effect may be given to “necessary findings in a formal administrative adjudication if the parties had both a full opportunity and the incentive to contest the point at issue on a record that also was subject to judicial review”
- characterizing Ratliff as holding that the “motor vehicle department’s license suspension procedure too informal for preclu-sive effect.”

## Opinion text

PETERSON, C. J.,
concurring.
I concur in the result.
I read the referee’s opinion (quoting from his decision) to find that, because of “a rupture[d] disc” and “[work] restrictions that have been imposed to prevent reinjury,” the claimant “is precluded from returning to work in the wood products industry.” I do not share the majority’s uncertainty concerning the quoted language.
I nonetheless would affirm the Court of Appeals because, as this court has stated, “the [referee’s] determination was [not] essential to the judgment.” State Farm Fire and Casualty v. Reuter, 299 Or 155, 158 , 700 P2d 236 (1985). There is no statute or rule imposing the requirement that a worker be “precluded” from returning to his or her job in order to obtain an award of permanent partial disability. As the majority points out, 307 Or at 637, “[t]o make a claimant appeal an otherwise satisfactory award only to eliminate the preclusive effect of unrequested and nonessential findings would not further the procedural objectives of preclusion * *

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9624766. Public record. Not legal advice.