Case law

Iles v. Fred Meyer, Inc.

173 Or. App. 254 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 28, 2001

See also SAIF v. Lewis, 170 Or App 201 , 12 P3d 498 (2000). Claimant argued to the Board that the medical evidence of edema was an objective finding. … Here, the Board did not “provide a ‘sufficient explanation to allow a reviewing court to examine the agency’s action.’ ” SAIF v. January, 166 Or App 620, 626 , 998 P2d 1286 (2000), quoting Schoch v.

State v. Hanson

162 Or. App. 38 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 21, 1999

Payless Drug Stores Northwest v. Brown, 300 Or 243 , 780 P2d 1143 (1985); Seidel v. Time Ins. Co., 157 Or App 556, 560 , 970 P2d 255 (1998). … See, e.g., Boise Cascade Corp. v. Board of Forestry (S42159), 325 Or 185 , 935 P2d 411 (1997); Cope v. City of Cannon Beach, 317 Or 339 , 855 P2d 1083 (1993).

Blank v. US Bank

252 Or. App. 553 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 26, 2012

Livesley Co. v. Russ, 296 Or 25, 30 , 672 P2d 337 (1983). We review the board’s order for substantial evidence and errors of law under ORS 656.298(7) and ORS 183.482(8), and affirm. … As we concluded in McTaggart v.

Bentley v. State Accident Insurance Fund

38 Or. App. 473 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 20, 1979

Hoffman Construction Co., 254 Or 624 , 459 P2d 991 (1969); Surratt v. Gunderson Bros., 259 Or 65 , 485 P2d 410 (1971). … We conclude that the award of attorney fees by the Board may be contested on appeal to this court without an objection to the Board. In Reeves v.

Tucker v. Geico Casualty Co.

317 Or. App. 370 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 2, 2022

370 Submitted January 5, affirmed February 2, 2022 Demetrius TUCKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. … Brown and Gordon & Polscer, LLC filed the brief for respondent. Before Mooney, Presiding Judge, and Lagesen, Chief Judge, and DeHoog, Judge pro tempore. PER CURIAM Affirmed. Koenig v.

Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Piwowar

86 Or. App. 82 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 24, 1987

Additionally, the Board correctly held that employer must pay claimant the benefits which were due and unpaid on the date of the referee’s order reversing the award. See Hutchison v. … Georgia-Pacific v. Hughes, 85 Or App 362 , 736 P2d 602 (1987).

Hamel v. Johnson

158 Or. App. 276 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 10, 1999

Defendant moves to dismiss the appeal as moot under our holding in Jones v. Thompson, 156 Or App 226 , 968 P2d 380 (1998). … Greenholtz v. Nebraska Penal Inmates, 442 US 1 , 99 S Ct 2100 , 60 L Ed 2d 668 (1979); Beveridge v.

Alcala v. Employment Department

235 Or. App. 32 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 21, 2010

As we recently reiterated in Castro v. … See also Salosha, Inc. v.

McGarrah v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp.

59 Or. App. 448 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 29, 1982

Claimant appeals from a determination by the Workers’ Compensation Board (Board) that his psychiatric disability is not compensable. This case is the first to reach us of a series decided after James v. … In this case, the Board cited Rogers without discussion, but in formulating its rule here it attempted to analogize such cases as Frosty v.

Koitzsch v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp.

125 Or. App. 666 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 5, 1994

ORS 174.020; Porter v. Hill, 314 Or 86, 91 , 838 P2d 45 (1992). We look first to the statute’s text and context. If those sources do not disclose the legislature’s intent, we resort to legislative history. Bartz v. … Because the Board relied on Nathan’s impairment findings, we cannot say that the Board would have reached the same result despite that error.

Schoch v. Luepold & Stevens

162 Or. App. 242 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 4, 1999

It held that the Board’s explanation was not sufficient to determine whether the Board had acted within its discretion in setting the fee. Schoch v. Leupold & Stevens, 325 Or 112 , 934 P2d 410 (1997). … . 3 The Board remanded to the hearings division in light of Jefferson v.

Ross v. Springfield School District No. 19

56 Or. App. 197 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 8, 1982

As we pointed out in Lincoln County School Dist. v. … Megdal v. Board of Dental Examiners, supra, 288 Or at 299 ; see Marquam Investment Corporation v. Beers, 47 Or App 711, 714 , 615 P2d 1064 , rev den 290 Or 249 (1980).

In re the Marriage of Hadley

77 Or. App. 295 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 22, 1986

Abraham v. Abraham, 248 Or 163, 164 , 432 P2d 797 (1967); Brown v. Brown, 28 Or App 535, 537 , 559 P2d 1332 (1977). … See Brown v. Brown, supra. The question is whether the trial court had the authority, without a change of circumstances, to order the Secretary to make payments directly to wife from husband’s retirement pay.

Henley v. Employment Department

284 Or. App. 781 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 12, 2017

We take the facts from the board’s findings and from the undisputed evidence in the record that is not inconsistent with those findings. See Warkentin v. Employment Dept., 245 Or App 128, 130 , 261 P3d 72 (2011). … Kercher v. Employment Dept., 250 Or App 409, 411 , 280 P3d 1040 (2012).

Kari v. Jefferson County School District No. 509-J

120 Or. App. 99 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 12, 1993

The Fair Dismissal Appeals Board (FDAB) reversed the dismissal. The district sought our review, and we reversed FDAB’s decision. Jefferson County School Dist. No. 509-J v. … See Ross v. Springfield School Dist. No. 19, 300 Or 507, 519 , 716 P2d 724 (1986).

Gage v. Fred Meyer Stores-Kroger Co.

Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 14, 2024

Reconsideration allowed; opinion modified and adhered to as modified. 670 Gage v. Fred Meyer Stores-Kroger Co. MOONEY, J. … Respondent (Fred Meyer) has petitioned for recon- sideration of our decision in Gage v. Fred Meyer Stores - Kroger Co., 329 Or App 360, 540 P3d 592 (2023).

Gleason v. Oregon Racing Commission

233 Or. App. 164 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 6, 2010

In Guzman v. … See Cansino v.

Giltner v. SAIF

325 Or. App. 566 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 26, 2023

Claimant now seeks our review of the board’s order. “We review the board’s statutory interpretation for errors of law.” Baker v. Liberty Northwest Ins. … In Landriscina v.

Wise v. Hays

74 Or. App. 245 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 3, 1985

See Esperum v. Board of Parole, 296 Or 789 , 681 P2d 1128 (1984); Harris v. Board of Parole, 47 Or App 289 , 614 P2d 602 , rev den 290 Or 157 (1980); ORS 144.335. … State ex rel LeVasseur v. Merten, 297 Or 577, 580 , 686 P2d 366 (1984). Having failed to seek judicial review of the Board’s order, plaintiff is not now entitled to relief by writ of mandamus. Rosboro Lumber Co. v.

Smithee v. Employment Department

228 Or. App. 346 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 13, 2009

Don’t Waste Oregon Com. v. Energy Facility Siting, 320 Or 132, 142 , 881 P2d 119 (1994). See also Jones v. … We explained in Freeman v.