days had passed, that his symptoms were associated with the pain that he had experienced for the first time while he was working on April 27, 2011. In sum, the board’s findings about the work incident and the sensations that claimant experienced appear to be inconsistent with the board’s ultimate finding that claimant did not know, when he experienced the pull in his testicle, that he had been injured. That ultimate finding is the predicate for the board’s legal conclusion that claimant had good cause for not notifying employer of the injury within 90 days. Because the board’s order includes inconsistent factual findings and does not include a rational explanation of how those findings logically lead to its conclusion, the order lacks substantial reason. See Hamilton, 266 Or App at 682 (<HOLDING>); Christman v. SAIF, 181 Or App 191, 197-98, 45
holding that the order was not based on substantial reason when the board failed to show how the facts that it identifies connect to its conclusion holding that the hospital failed to show how it was harmed by failure to verify the rule to show cause holding that the district court was authorized to remand the proceedings to the board where the board failed to make required findings holding that the board did not abuse its discretion by dismissing an untimely appeal where the appellant failed to respond to a board order to show cause holding that the state failed to meet its burden when the record failed to show that the jurors would or would not be available after a weeks continuance