Case law

EBI Insurance v. Chandler

112 Or. App. 275 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 8, 1992

Employer contends that there is controlling case law interpreting ORS 656.319 that holds that a request for hearing is filed only when received, Norton v. … Employer did not challenge the substantive validity of the rule at the Board level; therefore, we will not consider the argument for the first time on judicial review. Northwest Advancement v.

Ybarra v. Dominguez Family Enterprises, Inc.

322 Or. App. 798 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 30, 2022

All of the share- holders were employees of DFE and members of its board, except for plaintiff, who resigned her position in 2011. … v.

Martinez-Munoz v. Kendal Merchandising

323 Or. App. 11 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 7, 2022

an occupational disease claim at the time of the new/omitted 14 Martinez-Munoz v. … The board affirmed and adopted the ALJ’s order. On judicial review, claimant does not dispute that claim preclusion is applicable in the workers’ compensation context, see Drews v.

Josephine County v. PERB

316 Or. App. 150 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 8, 2021

Affirmed. 152 Josephine County v. PERB DeVORE, P. J. … Service Employees Int’l Union Local 503 v. DAS, 183 Or App 594, 606, 54 P3d 1043 (2002).

Valleur v. McGee

42 Or. App. 391 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 1, 1979

Consequently, the holding of a hearing is not a condition precedent to the Board’s jurisdiction but only to the Board’s power to confine a defendant. … Newton v. Brooks, 246 Or 484, 489-90 , 426 P2d 446 (1967). The mechanism for determining suitability for release is the hearing.

Fred Meyer, Inc. v. Crompton

150 Or. App. 531 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 15, 1997

Employer seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board (Board), claiming that the Board applied the wrong standard for determining compensability. We affirm. … We review the Board’s order to determine whether, as a matter of law, the Board applied an incorrect legal standard. ORS 183.482(8)(a); Armstrong v.

SAIF Corp. v. Webb

181 Or. App. 205 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 1, 2002

SAIF argues that the Board erred when it assigned responsibility to SAIF under an “exception” to the presumption established in Industrial Indemnity Co. v. Kearns, 70 Or App 583 , 690 P2d 1068 (1984). … See Conner v. B&S Logging, 153 Or App 354 [, 957 P2d 159 ] (1998)* * *.

Niccum v. Southcoast Lumber Co.

123 Or. App. 472 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 6, 1993

The Board relied on its decision in Stanley Meyers, 43 Van Natta 2643 (1991), and its interpretation of ORS 656.327 and ORS 656.704. In Meyers v. … In Jefferson v.

James v. Employment Division

20 Or. App. 309 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 10, 1975

The Employment Division contends that in modifying the discharge PEKB was substituting its judgment for that of the agency contrary to our holding in Thompson v. … This Board order was pre-Thompson and thus the Board did not have the benefit of the reasoning of this court in Thompson v. Secretary of State, 19 Or App 74 , 526 P2d 621 , Sup Ct review denied (1974).

Rowden v. Hogan Woods, LLC

306 Or. App. 658 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 30, 2020

Co. v. … Assn. v.

Saif Corp. v. Avery

167 Or. App. 327 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 17, 2000

The Board may remand a claim if it determines that the claim was “improperly, incompletely or otherwise insufficiency developed.” ORS 656.295(5). In Bailey v. … ORS 656.298(6) (1985). 2 In Compton v.

Sprague v. United States Bakery, Saif Corp.

200 Or. App. 569 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 13, 2005

Sprague v. United States Bakery, 199 Or App 435 , 112 P3d 362 (2005). … We disagreed with the board’s statement, relying, in part, on our holding in Fred Meyer, Inc. v. Crompton, 150 Or App 531, 536 , 946 P2d 1171 (1997).

Shaw v. Rebholz

152 Or. App. 328 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 4, 1998

Police Officers v. … See, e.g., Santos v. Caryall Transport, 152 Or App 322, 326-27 , 954 P2d 187 (1998).

Ensign v. Marion County

140 Or. App. 114 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 27, 1996

In Prentiss & Carlisle v. … See also Benitez-Allende v.

Gollender v. Morgan

17 Or. App. 104 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 1, 1974

This court may reverse or remand the Board’s order only if it finds that “* * * the order is not supported by reliable, *108 probative and substantial evidence in the whole record * * ORS 183.480 (7) (d); Harvey v. … In Zimbrick v.

Armstrong v. Saif Corp.

67 Or. App. 498 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 28, 1984

We deny the motion to dismiss and reverse and remand to the Board. We have written two previous opinions on this claim. Armstrong v. SAIF, 58 Or App 602 , 649 P2d 818 , rev den 293 Or 801 (1982); Armstrong v. … This case is like Egge v.

Kerr v. Bradbury

193 Or. App. 304 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 5, 2004

.”); Weyerhaeuser v. … .”); State v.

Smirnoff v. SAIF Corp.

188 Or. App. 438 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 2, 2003

As we explained in O’Neal v. … Our decision in Jeld-Wen, Inc. v.

Brooks v. Timber

55 Or. App. 688 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 25, 1982

McGarry v. SAIF, 24 Or App 883, 888 , 547 P2d 654 (1976). Employer does not contest the Board’s finding that claimant’s injury is compensable. … Claimant prevailed on a previously disallowed claim at the Board level, and the *693 Board was without authority to reduce the award of attorney fees on its own motion. See Moe v.

SAIF Corp. v. Sparks

258 Or. App. 227 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 21, 2013

ORS 183.482(8)(a)(B); Baker v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp., 257 Or App 205, 210 , 305 P3d 139 (2013). In resolving that issue, we apply, of course, the methodology prescribed in PGE v. … Haskins v. Palmateer, 186 Or App 159, 166 , 63 P3d 31 , rev den, 335 Or 510 (2003).