
    Argued and submitted June 16,
    affirmed November 16,1988
    In the Matter of the Compensation of Clay E. Hughes, Claimant. HUGHES, Petitioner, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, Respondent.
    
    (WCB 86-00869; CA A46549)
    764 P2d 234
    Robert K. Udziela, Portland, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were Lawrence Baron and Pozzi, Wilson, Atchison, O’Leary & Conboy, Portland.
    Jerry K. Brown, McMinnville, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Cummins, Brown, Goodman, Fish & Peterson, P.C., McMinnville.
    Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Newman and Deits, Judges.
    PER CURIAM
   PER CURIAM

Claimant seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board which reversed the referee’s decision and upheld employer’s denial. We affirm.

Claimant sought compensation for a low back condition which he asserted was an occupational disease. The issues raised by claimant are purely issues of fact. The petition for review was filed on November 18, 1987, consequently, our review is for substantial evidence. Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co., 90 Or App 200, 752 P2d 312 (1988). Claimant contends on appeal that our review is de novo and, consequently, has not pointed out any fact finding of the Board which he contends is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. We decline to search the record to determine if the facts recited by the Board are supported in the record. The Board adequately explains the reasoning from the facts it found to the conclusion it reached.

Affirmed.  