Case law

Strawn v. BELLEQUE

217 Or. App. 578 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 30, 2008

See Adams v. … Moreover, and in any event, on this date, we have determined on judicial review of the relevant board order that the order was not unlawful for any of the reasons asserted by plaintiff in that proceeding. Strawn v.

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.

State Accident Insurance Fund Corp. v. Phipps

85 Or. App. 436 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 20, 1987

Hensel Phelps Const, v. … The Board relied on Petshow v. Farm Bureau Ins. Co., 76 Or App 563 , 710 P2d 781 (1985), rev den 300 Or 722 (1986), which involved a proceeding to determine which insurer was responsible for a compensable injury.

Werth v. Employment Department

237 Or. App. 520 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 29, 2010

We take the following, undisputed facts from the board’s order as supplemented by the record. See Lane v. Employment Dept., 229 Or App 556, 558 , 213 P3d 9 (2009). … best guarantee of her safety. 6 See, e.g., State 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).”

Huckaby v. Newell

16 Or. App. 581 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 11, 1974

Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 US at 479-480 . Morrissey v. … conducts further proceedings consistent with Morrissey v.

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.

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 .

Matter of Adoption of Leistikow

37 Or. App. 539 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 18, 1978

See Swarthout v. Reeves, 26 Or App 763, 767 , 554 P2d 617 (1976); Brown v. Taylor, 22 Or App 219 , 538 P2d 1268 , rev den (1975); Berry v. Letchworth, 19 Or App 261 , 527 P2d 145 (1974); Mahoney v. … In such cases, the degree of constraint imposed is significant; i.e. neglect consistent with terms of the decree, Swarthout v. Reeves, supra at 763; active secretion of children coupled with threats of death, Brown v.

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.

Bird v. Bohemia, Inc.

118 Or. App. 201 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 17, 1993

ORS 174.010; ORS 174.020, State v. Tyler, 108 Or App 378 , 815 P2d 1289 (1991). … We affirmed the Board. Bird v. Bohemia, Inc., 113 Or App 233 , 832 P2d 1276 (1992).

State v. Crumal

62 Or. App. 156 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 2, 1983

See State v. Knowles, 289 Or 813 , 618 P2d 1245 (1980). If the test in Brown is of constitutional origin, the above discussion of ORS 131.515(2) applies equally to defeat defendant’s constitutional claim. State v. … If, on the other hand, the Brown joinder requirement is not of constitutional origin, we are apparently left with a “same evidence test,” State v.

Walters v. PSRB

341 Or. App. 41 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 4, 2025

PSYCHIATRIC SECURITY REVIEW BOARD, Respondent. Psychiatric Security Review Board 102478; A175054 Submitted June 3, 2024. Harris S. … If the board finds that a person under the jurisdiction of the board * * * [i]s no longer affected by a qualifying mental disorder, or, if so affected, no longer presents a substantial danger to others, the board

O'LEARY v. Valley View Cutting

107 Or. App. 103 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 15, 1991

The Board concluded that former OAR 438-07-015(2) does not apply until a claimant files a request for a hearing. Chapter 438 contains the Board’s rules of practice and procedure for contested cases. … We defer to the Board’s interpretation of its own rules, so long as the interpretation is not inconsistent with the rules and the statutes. Mershon v.

International Paper Co. v. Riggs

114 Or. App. 203 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 8, 1992

Forney v. Western States Plywood, 297 Or 628, 632 , 686 P2d 1027 (1984). … See SAIF v. Bates, 94 Or App 666, 669, 767 P2d 87 (1989).

SAIF Corporation v. Wheeler

107 Or. App. 254 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 22, 1991

We have interpreted ORS 656.278(1), as it now reads, to abolish the Board’s authority to award permanent disability benefits on its own motion. See State ex rel Borisoff v. Workers’ Comp. … Board, 104 Or App 603, 606 , 802 P2d 98 (1990); Independent Paper Stock v. Wincer, 100 Or App 625, 628 , 788 P2d 466 , rev den 310 Or 195 (1990).

Johnson v. Saif Corp. (In re Comp. of Johnson)

291 Or. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 28, 2018

Claimant asserted further that, in Schleiss v. … Schleiss , 354 Or. at 643 -44 , 317 P.3d 244 (citing Olson v. State Ind. Acc. Com. , 222 Or. 407 , 414, 352 P.2d 1096 (1960) ). In Mize v. Comcast Corp-AT & T Broadband , 208 Or.

Manley v. SAIF Corp.

181 Or. App. 431 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 8, 2002

It relies initially on a footnote in Daquilante-Richards v. CIGNA Ins. … See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Leonard, 151 Or App 307, 311 , 948 P2d 1256 (1997); Schuening v. J. R. Simplot & Company, 84 Or App 622, 625 , 735 P2d 1 , rev den 303 Or 590 (1987).

Lane v. Employment Department

229 Or. App. 556 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 15, 2009

Claimant seeks judicial review of an order of the Employment Appeals Board (the board). … See, e.g., Young v.

Renolds-Croft, Inc. v. Bill Morrison Co.

55 Or. App. 487 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 6, 1982

Oremus v. Oregonian Pub. Co., 3 Or App 92 , 470 P2d 162 , rev den (1970), was decided before jurisdiction was transferred to the director, and in Bell v. … See SAIF v. Broadway Cab Co., 52 Or App 689, 693 , 629 P2d 829 , rev den 291 Or 622 (1981). The division of authority between the Board and the Director is made explicit by statute. ORS 656.704(2); ORS 656.726.