Opinion

SAIF Corp. v. Allen

124 Or. App. 183
861 P.2d 1018
1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 1748

Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
Filed: Oct 20, 1993
Status: Published
Author: Rossman
On the bench: Rossman, De Muniz Leeson, Leeson, De Muniz
Cited by: 7 cases

Reversed on other grounds by Saif Corp. v. Allen, 320 Or. 192 (1994)

The opinion

ROSSMAN, P. J.,

dissenting.

Because the Board and referee got this one right, I dissent. SAIF readily admits that it did not pay all of claimant’s medical bills in a timely fashion. This is definitely not the time for a claimant’s attorney to be slumbering at the *190 switch. It was only after she filed a request for hearing that the bills were finally paid. ORS 656.386(1) plainly provides that a claimant is entitled to insurer-paid attorney fees if the “attorney is instrumental in obtaining compensation.” The Board concluded that claimant’s attorney was instrumental in obtaining compensation, and that conclusion is supported by substantial evidence in the record. Accordingly, we should affirm the Board’s assessment of attorney fees.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.