Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Scarpellini v. Blue River Veneer

November 10, 1972

SCARPELLINI, RESPONDENT,
v.
BLUE RIVER VENEER ET AL, APPELLANTS



Appeal from Circuit Court, Lane County. Edwin E. Allen, Judge.

Philip A. Mongrain, Portland, argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellants.

Keith E. Tichenor, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Pozzi, Wilson & Atchison, Portland.

Fort, Judge. Schwab, Chief Judge, and Langtry, Judge.

Fort

Claimant's right eye was injured on April 7, 1969. A Determination Order issued by the Workmen's Compensation Board awarded temporary total disability but no permanent disability. Claimant requested a hearing. The hearing officer issued his Opinion and Order finding the claimant had sustained 100 per cent permanent disability of his right eye.

On appeal by the employer, the Workmen's Compensation Board affirmed the hearing officer. On further appeal by the employer, the circuit court judge affirmed the Workmen's Compensation Board. Employer appeals.

At the time of the injury the sight in the right eye of claimant, as the result of a previous nonindustrial accident, was severely impaired. Its condition prior to the injury as found by the hearing officer was:

"Claimant testified that just prior to the 1969 injury, he could, with the right eye, see shadows, light, movement and such as the glare of car lights at night, and that he could see hand, and finger movement at 1 1/2 to 2 feet distance. There appeared to be no reason to question the claimant's credibility."

He concluded:

"The claimant's right eye, just prior to the accident, was probably industrially useless, in terms of its being of any benefit in performing his duties on for example, the green chain. The eye was of some personal utility to the claimant. It perhaps helped him in his ability to 'get around.' To that extent it contributed to his total capacity to do his job. In other words, he was better off with it than without it."

In Wilson v. State Ind. Acc. Comm., 189 Or 114,

219 P2d 138 (1950), the court considered a case where a man lost the sight of an eye in covered employment. The evidence indicated that although prior to the injury he might well be considered to be blind in that eye for industrial purposes, nevertheless he did have some ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.