Case law

Cowart v. SAIF Corp.

86 Or. App. 748 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 5, 1987

Madewell v. Salvation Army, 49 Or App 713, 716 , 620 P2d 953 (1980). Although claimant did not receive the notice until January 9, 1984, 1 he received it well before the expiration of 60 days. … The Board is required to make the decision concerning “good cause” on the basis of the considerations in those sources. We reverse and remand for reconsideration. See DeCouteau v.

State v. Hubbard

290 Or. App. 640 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 7, 2018

When the 1999 legislature granted the board that authority, the defect was cured. Id. ; Cf. State v. Davis , 216 Or. … Defendant's argument relies on State v. Rudder/Webb , 137 Or.

Travis v. Liberty Mutual Insurance

79 Or. App. 126 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 23, 1986

The only section dealing specifically with the offset of overpayments of temporary total disability is ORS 656.268(4). 2 As we stated in Forney v. … See Forney v. Western States Plywood, supra, 66 Or App at 160 . Additionally, there has been no showing that the delay was unreasonable.

MacKillop v. Employment Department

172 Or. App. 207 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 31, 2001

Linville v. Employment Dept., 146 Or App 317, 323 , 934 P2d 442 (1997). After the Board decided this case, we decided Perez v. Employment Dept., 164 Or App 356 , 992 P2d 460 (1999). … In deciding the issue presented by his argument, we *214 reviewed a number of cases interpreting the rule, including Bunnell v. Employment Division, 304 Or 11 , 741 P2d 887 (1987), Waters v.

State v. Fernandez

Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 31, 2024

Or Laws 1989, ch 790, § 21; State v. … Id. at 192; see also State v.

Hood River County School District v. Fogle

30 Or. App. 699 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 22, 1977

These requirements are jurisdictional and failure to satisfy them precludes the Fair Dismissal Appeals Board’s consideration of a dismissal appeal. See, Williams v. … Williams v. Cody, 24 Or App at 436 . Respondent’s notice of appeal was received on the same day that she received notice of her dismissal.

Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. v. Koitzsch

155 Or. App. 494 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 26, 1998

In Volk v. … In Dean v. SAIF, 72 Or App 16 , 695 P2d 90 , rev den 298 Or 822 (1985), and Lindamood v.

Public Utility Commission v. Tillotson

210 Or. App. 433 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 3, 2007

The board further determined, however, that those separate acts were “connected in subject matter and in proximity.” Citing Perez v. … Steele v.

Agripac, Inc. v. Beem

130 Or. App. 170 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 7, 1994

Koitzsch v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp., 125 Or App 666 , 866 P2d 514 (1994). We conclude, however, that the Board’s error, if any, in admitting other medical evidence is harmless. … The Board chose not to accept Feinberg’s opinion, which was the only opinion indicating that claimant had permanent impairment. It can do that. Libbett v. Roseburg Forest Products, 130 Or App 50 , 880 P2d 935 (1994).

Transamerica Insurance Group v. Adams

62 Or. App. 419 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 30, 1983

Adams v. … Smith v. Rubel, supra; Security Savings and Trust Co. v.

SAIF Corp. v. Gaffke

152 Or. App. 367 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 4, 1998

See Somers v. SAIF, 77 Or App 259, 263 , 712 P2d 179 (1986) (Board may give more weight to medical opinions that are well reasoned and based on complete information.). … In SAIF v.

Bowen v. Fred Meyer Stores

202 Or. App. 558 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 16, 2005

ORS 183.482(8)(c); Garcia v. Boise Cascade Corp., 309 Or 292, 295 , 787 P2d 884 (1990). We conclude that the board’s findings are supported by substantial evidence and affirm. … Dietz v. Ramuda, 130 Or App 397 , 882 P2d 618 (1994), rev dismissed, 321 Or 416 (1995); Jackson County v. Wehren, 186 Or App 555, 559 , 63 P3d 1233 (2003) (citing representative cases); Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. v.

Precision Castparts Corp. v. Plummer

140 Or. App. 227 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 17, 1996

The Board adopted the ALJ’s order. … Volk v. America West Airlines, 135 Or App 565 , 899 P2d 746 (1995). There are no express exceptions applicable to the amendment of ORS 656.283(7).

Braden v. SAIF Corp.

187 Or. App. 494 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 8, 2003

We have repeatedly interpreted ORS 656.295(6) as granting the board de novo review and as authorizing the board to address issues sua sponte. Christman v. SAIF, 181 Or App 191, 195 , 45 P3d 946 (2002); Destael v. … In Croman Corp. v.

Hammond v. ALBINA ENGINE & MACHINE WORKS, INC.

13 Or. App. 156 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 23, 1973

In that case we dismissed an appeal from an order of the Workmen’s Compensation Board that had remanded claimant’s case for a further hearing. In Hiles v. … * * Winters et al v. Grimes et al, 124 Or 214, 216-17 , 264 P 359 (1928).”

Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. v. Bird

99 Or. App. 560 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 6, 1989

Co. v. Rush, 98 Or App 730 , 780 P2d 748 (1989); Kepford v. Weyerhaeuser, 77 Or App 363 , 713 P2d 625 , rev den 300 Or 722 (1986). In Million v. … Co. v. Rush, supra, 98 Or App at 735 ; Kepford v. Weyerhaeuser, supra, 77 Or App at 365 .

Harris v. Farmers' Co-op Creamery

53 Or. App. 618 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 24, 1981

Schwehn v. SAIF, 17 Or App 50 , 520 P2d 467 (1974). Both the referee and the Board agreed that claimant had established legal causation. … We said in Hammons v.

Teledyne Wah Chang v. Vorderstrasse

104 Or. App. 498 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 5, 1990

Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co., 90 Or App 200, 205-06 , 752 P2d 312 (1988). The Board agreed with the referee, so it was not required to reiterate the referee’s findings, if they were adequate. Johnston v. … See Collins v. Hygenic Corporation of Oregon, supra. The Board’s conclusion is supported by substantial evidence.

Active Transportation Co. v. Wylie

159 Or. App. 12 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 10, 1999

Employer relies on Reynolds Metals v. Thrasher, 133 Or App 30 , 889 P2d 1352 (1995). There, the claimant also injured his knee and an arthroscopy revealed preexisting chondromalacia. … Mathel v. Josephine County, 319 Or 235, 240 , 875 P2d 455 (1994). By contrast, an injury is sudden, arises from an identifiable event, or has an onset traceable to a discrete period of time. Id.; Valtinson v.

State ex rel. Department of Land Conservation & Development v. Clatsop County

244 Or. App. 33 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 29, 2011

In Biggerstaff v. … Friends of Yamhill County v. Board of Commissioners, 237 Or App 149, 152 , 238 P3d 1016 (2010), rev allowed, 349 Or 602 (2011).