# Bailey v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp.

> Oregon Supreme Court · November 15, 1983 · 296 Or. 41

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9531706

## Case

- **Full name:** In the Matter of the Compensation of Catherine Bailey, Claimant. BAILEY, Petitioner on Review, v. STATE ACCIDENT INSURANCE FUND CORPORATION, Respondent on Review
- **Court:** Oregon Supreme Court
- **Decided:** November 15, 1983
- **Citations:** 296 Or. 41; 672 P.2d 333; 1983 Ore. LEXIS 1676
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Peterson
- **Judges:** Jones, Peterson
- **Cited by:** 5 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/9531706

## Opinion text

PETERSON, C. J.,
concurring
I agree with the result, but upon a different analysis. In denying the claimant’s motion the Board relied upon two rules, OAR 436-83-480 and OAR 436-83-700(5), which have no application to Board consideration of motions to remand for further evidence taking, correction, or other necessary action. For this reason, the case should be remanded to the Board. 1
I disagree with the newly-discovered evidence/newly - created evidence dichotomy discussed on pages 46-49 of the majority opinion. I believe that “newly-created evidence” is a species of newly-discovered evidence which, by definition, could have been discovered and produced at the hearing before the referee. Therefore, a separate rule need not be promulgated to cover “newly-created evidence.”
The Board can promulgate a rule that in considering motions to remand under ORS 656.295(5) the party would have to make the type of showing required under present OAR 436-83-480(2).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9531706. Public record. Not legal advice.