Case law

Kenimer v. SAIF Corp.

183 Or. App. 131 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 31, 2002

Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co., 90 Or App 200, 205 , 752 P2d 312 (1988). In SAIF v. … See SAIF v.

Horizon Air Industries, Inc. v. Davis-Warren

266 Or. App. 388 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 15, 2014

The board relied heavily on K-Mart v. … Ordinarily, the question of how to resolve competing expert medical opinions is within the discretion of the board. Armstrong v.

Springfield Education Ass'n v. Springfield School District No. 19

24 Or. App. 751 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 17, 1976

Board v. Hearst Publications, 322 US 111 , 64 S Ct 851 , 88 L Ed 1170 (1944) (a case involving the National Labor Relations Board); Van Ripper v. Liquor Cont. Com., 228 Or 581 , 365 P2d 109 (1961). … Labor relations boards and courts in other jurisdictions have reached similar conclusions. Dunellen Bd. of Ed. v. Dunellen Ed.

Smicz v. Deschutes County 911 Service Dist.

347 Or. App. 28 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 11, 2026

SAIF v. Thompson, 360 Or 155, 161, 379 P3d 494 (2016)). … Given the record as a whole and the Board’s reasoning, we conclude that substantial evi- dence and reason supported the Board’s determination. See Zanetti v.

Scott v. Sports Authority, Inc.

283 Or. App. 518 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 1, 2017

TriMet v. Wilkinson, 257 Or App 80, 85 , 304 P3d 46 (2013); SAIF v. Tull, 113 Or App 449, 454 , 832 P2d 1271 (1992) (en banc); Columbia Forest Products v. Woolner, 177 Or App 639 , 34 P3d 1203 (2001). … Co. v. CNA Insurance, 95 Or App 448, 451 , 769 P2d 789 (1989) (affirming board order holding that report reflecting acceptance of claim was not intended to be an acceptance).

Adams v. Transamerica Insurance Group

45 Or. App. 769 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 14, 1980

the exclusive appellate tribunal from Board orders. … See Schulz v. Compensation Department, 252 Or 211, 215 , 448 P2d 551 (1968); cf. Seeber v. Marlette Homes, Inc., 30 Or App 233 , 566 P2d 926 (1977); Greenwade v.

Camacho v. SAIF Corp.

263 Or. App. 647 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 18, 2014

The dissenting board member further concluded that claimant’s case was an “uncomplicated case” under Uris v. … that statute in Zurita v.

Mandes v. Liberty Mutual Holdings

318 Or. App. 207 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 9, 2022

Here, the board found that employer did not mandate claimant’s walk or direct her route. See Hearthstone Manor v. … [SAIF Corp. v.]

Barnes v. Thompson

159 Or. App. 383 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 31, 1999

Plaintiff petitioned for habeas corpus relief, alleging that the Board of Parole’s (Board) extension of his projected parole release date for two years violated the ex post facto provisions of the state and federal constitutions … Pham v. Thompson, 156 Or App 440, 445 , 965 P2d 482 (1998). Appeal dismissed.

Express Services, Inc. v. Conradson

180 Or. App. 534 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 10, 2002

We further explained the substantial evidence standard in Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co., 90 Or App 200, 206 , 752 P2d 312 (1988): . … As we explained in Deaton v.

Neely v. State Accident Insurance Fund

43 Or. App. 319 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 26, 1979

Francoeur v. SAIF, 20 Or App 604, 607 , 532 P2d 1148 (1975). The Board’s review is de novo. Robertson v. SAIF, 17 Or App 280, 281 , 521 P2d 1088 (1974). … Fundamental fairness may dictate that the Board ould not decide a claim on the basis of evidence not the record, McManus v. State Acc. Ins.

Wood v. Morgan

17 Or. App. 579 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 11, 1974

Scoggins/Yost/ Strong v. Morgan, 11 Or App 502, 506 , 503 P2d 509 (1972). See also Henzel et al v. Cameron et al, 228 Or 452 , 365 P2d 498 (1961). … Henzel et al v. Cameron et al, supra, 228 Or at 464 . Edison Co. v. Labor Board, 305 US 197 , 59 S Ct 206 , 83 L Ed 126 (1938); Bay v. State Board of Education, 233 Or 601, 605 , 378 P2d 558 , 96 ALR2d 529 (1963).

Brom v. Newell

15 Or. App. 246 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 5, 1973

Anderson v. Alexander, 191 Or 409 , 229 P2d 633 , 230 P2d 770 (1951); Thompson v. Cupp, 5 Or App 393 , 484 P2d 858 , 29 ALR2d 1051 (1971); State ex rel Gilmore v. … Ball v. Gladden, 250 Or 485 , 443 P2d 621 (1968).

Ricard v. Klamath Falls Forest Estates HOA

328 Or. App. 46 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 13, 2023

Finally, the court concluded: 56 Ricard v. … Eklof v. Steward, 360 Or 717, 730, 385 P3d 1074 (2016); Two Two v. Fujitec America, Inc., 355 Or 319, 325-26, 325 P3d 707 (2014); Woodroffe v. State of Oregon, 292 Or App 21, 27, 422 P3d 381 (2018).

Grossen v. Griffey & Laird Logging Co.

7 Or. App. 600 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 14, 1972

This separation of awards was pursuant to Workmen’s Compensation Board Administrative Order No. 1-1970, dated January 23, 1970, based, it recites, on Ryf v. … As has recently been pointed out in Ford v.

Jordan v. SAIF Corp.

197 Or. App. 599 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 16, 2005

See Holmes v. State Ind. Acc. Com., 227 Or 562 , 362 P2d 371 (1961); Verban v. State Ind. Acc. Com., 168 Or 394 , 123 P2d 988 (1942); Chebot v. State Industrial Acc. Commission, 106 Or 660 , 212 P 792 (1923). … See Wausau Ins. v.

Steiner v. E.J. Bartells Co.

170 Or. App. 759 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 8, 2000

Nelson v. Emerald People’s Utility Dist., 318 Or 99, 104 , 862 P2d 1293 (1993). See also Couch v. … We next consider whether the Board had the authority to order claimant’s attorney to pay SAIF personally. Recently, in Gaynor v.

Oregon Public Utility Commission v. Employment Department

267 Or. App. 68 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 19, 2014

We review the board’s order “for substantial evidence, substantial reason, and errors of law.” Franklin v. Employment Dept., 254 Or App 656, 657 , 294 P3d 554 (2013). … Employer first argues that certain findings made by the board are not supported by substantial evidence. See Warkentin v.

State v. Jury

185 Or. App. 132 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 20, 2002

State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355 , 800 P2d 259 (1990). If the asserted error satisfies those criteria, we then must exercise our discretion in deciding whether to correct the error. Ailes v. … See, e.g., Ailes, 312 Or at 381-83 ; Brown, 310 Or at 355 .

Alexander v. Gower

200 Or. App. 22 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 1, 2005

See Barber v. Gladden, 210 Or 46, 62-63 , 309 P2d 192 (1957), cert den, 359 US 948 (1959); see also Billings v. … White v.