Case law

Franklin v. Employment Department

254 Or. App. 656 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 30, 2013

Don’t Waste Oregon Com. v. Energy Facility Siting, 320 Or 132, 142 , 881 P2d 119 (1994); Johnson v. … See, e.g., Bunnell v.

SAIF Corp. v. Bales

274 Or. App. 700 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 4, 2015

Safeway Stores, Inc. v. … See Stull v. Hoke, 326 Or 72, 77 , 948 P2d 722 (1997).

Stevenson v. Morgan

17 Or. App. 428 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 20, 1974

See, Swift & Co. and Armour & Co. v. Peterson, 192 Or 97 , 233 P2d 216 (1951). … Uniweld Products, Inc. v. Industrial Rel. Com’n, etc., 277 So2d 827 (Fla App 1973). The question of “good cause” is therefore to be determined from the particular circumstances of each case. Fajardo v.

Greenslitt v. City of Lake Oswego

88 Or. App. 94 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 21, 1987

We hold that the Board was the proper forum for the attorney fees dispute under the facts of this case and, therefore, affirm. In SAIF v. … Group v.

State v. Templeton

23 Or. App. 39 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 13, 1975

See, State v. Swain/Goldsmith, 267 Or 527 , 517 P2d 684 (1974). See also, A. v. A., 15 Or App 353, 356-57 , 514 P2d 358 , Sup Ct review denied (1974), and Brown v. Brown, 4 Or App 621, 625 , 481 P2d 643 (1971). In A. v. … A. and Brown v. Brown, both supra, the same contention concerning similar comments by trial judges was considered and rejected by this *43 court. ① Here there were no formal findings of fact made by the court.

SAIF Corp. v. Dobbs

172 Or. App. 446 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 14, 2001

They sought review of the Board’s order, and claimant cross-petitioned from the Board’s order, asserting that under ORS 656.308 or Industrial Indemnity Co. v. … Accordingly, the Board held that SAIF/J&J was responsible for claimant’s current low back condition. The scope of SAIF/J&J’s acceptance is a question of fact. SAIF v. Tull, 113 Or App 449 , 832 P2d 1271 (1992).

Greenblatt v. Symantec Corp.

287 Or. App. 506 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 30, 2017

In Roberts v. … Bank v. Pohrman, 272 Or App 31 , 35 n 3, 354 P3d 722 , rev den, 358 Or 70 (2015) (citing Roberts v.

McDowell v. Employment Department

222 Or. App. 170 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 3, 2008

, Young v. … Brotherton v. Morgan, 17 Or App 435, 438 , 522 P2d 1210 (1974).

Reynolds v. USF Reddaway, Inc.

283 Or. App. 21 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 21, 2016

Corp. v. … See also Yi v.

State v. Aman

194 Or. App. 463 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 4, 2004

In State v. … See Brown, 297 Or at 440 (“[Scientific evidence must not ‘assume a posture of mystic infallibility in the eyes of a jury of lay[persons].’ ”) (quoting United States v.

Volk v. America West Airlines

135 Or. App. 565 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 26, 1995

The Board went on to conclude, relying on our decisions in Johnson v. Capitol Car Wash, 127 Or App 49 , 871 P2d 473 (1994), and Lebanon Plywood v. … Claimant argues that the Board’s reliance on Lebanon Plywood v. Seiber and Johnson v. Capitol Car Wash was misplaced and that the Board abused its discretion in failing to apply the provisions of OAR 438-15-085(2).

Meyers v. SAIF Corp. (In re Meyers)

291 Or. App. 331 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 18, 2018

The board upheld SAIF's denial. … Hopkins v. Kobos Co. , 186 Or.App. 273 , 276-77, 62 P.3d 870 (2003).

Bailey v. Morrison-Knudsen Company

5 Or. App. 592 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 17, 1971

As we pointed out in Swanson v. … Martin v. Douglas Co. Lumber, 4 Or App 69, 71-72 , 476 P2d 940 (1970); Melius v. Boise Cascade Corp., 2 Or App 206 , 466 P2d 624 (1970); Moore v. U. S. Plywood Corp., 1 Or App 343 , 462 P2d 453 (1969).

Daugherty v. SAIF Corp.

258 Or. App. 512 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 11, 2013

Simply, the board, has exclusive authority, under ORS 656.704, over “matters concerning a claim ***.” See, e.g., Martin v. … .”); Howard v.

Fleming v. SAIF

302 Or. App. 543 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 4, 2020

In that order, the board affirmed respondent SAIF’s denial of his occupational dis- ease claim for a right shoulder condition. The board con- cluded, applying Gilkey v. … This court has treated the determinations made after the board has approved a DCS like any other award or decision of the board. In Southwest Forest Industries v.

SAIF Corp. v. Sprague

221 Or. App. 413 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 30, 2008

Sprague v. United States Bakery, 340 Or 157 , 130 P3d 786 (2006). On remand, the board ruled in favor of claimant, concluding that his medical services claim was compensable. … See Van Blokland v. Oregon Health Sciences University, 87 Or App 694, 698 [, 743 P2d 1136 ] (1987); Summit v.

Harvey v. SAIF Corp.

286 Or. App. 539 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 6, 2017

The board, however, adopted and affirmed the ALJ’s order, supplemented by its own reasoning. Citing SAIF v. … See Arms v.

Miller v. SAIF Corp.

78 Or. App. 158 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 26, 1986

See Harwell v. Argonaut Insurance Co., 296 Or 505, 510 , 678 P2d 1202 (1984); Walker v. Compensation Department, 248 Or 195, 196 , 432 P2d 1018 (1967); McElmurry v. … Neely v. SAIF, 43 Or App 319, 323 , 602 P2d 1101 , rev den 288 Or 493 (1979); Cf. R.A. Gray & Co. v.

Netherton v. Aerotek Inc.-Allegis Grp. Inc. (In re Netherton)

292 Or. App. 550 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 27, 2018

. *551 Claimant petitions for review of an order of the Workers' Compensation Board. … We conclude that this case is controlled by our prior decisions in McDermott v. SAIF , 286 Or. App. 406 , 398 P.3d 964 (2017), and Magana-Marquez v. SAIF , 276 Or. App. 32 , 366 P.3d 764 (2016), and affirm.

Compensation of Korter v. EBI Companies, Inc.

46 Or. App. 43 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 5, 1980

Recently, this court in James v. … See Jones v. Emanuel Hospital, 280 Or 147 , 570 P2d 70 (1977); Williams v. SAIF, 31 Or App 1301 , 572 P2d 658 (1977).