Case law

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.

Cook v. State

9 Or. App. 224 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 7, 1972

See, e.g., Kramer v. Union Free School District, 395 US 621, 627 , 89 S Ct 1886 , 23 L Ed 2d 583 (1969); Harper v. … . * * *” Skinner v.

SAIF Corp. v. Cline

135 Or. App. 155 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 21, 1995

Employer seeks review, arguing that the Board erred in failing to apply OAR 436-30-050(13). 1 Claimant responds that we rejected *158 the same arguments in Nero v. City of Tualatin, 127 Or App 458 , 873 P2d 390 (1994). … In Foster v.

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.

Buss v. SAIF Corp.

182 Or. App. 590 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 17, 2002

To the extent that these cases may seem contrary to language in Weckesser v. Jet Delivery Systems, 132 Or App 325 [, 888 P2d 127 ] (1995), the Board’s decisions are more recent and must be followed. … Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the Board to offer an explanation for its disposition. See SAIF v. January, 166 Or App 620, 626 , 998 P2d 1286 (2000). Reversed and remanded for reconsideration.

Association of Oregon Corrections Employees v. State

246 Or. App. 477 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 9, 2011

We review the board’s conclusion that the CBA is ambiguous for errors of law, Arlington Ed. Assn. v. Arlington Sch. Dist. … We first consider whether the board correctly construed the CBA. A CBA is a contract that is subject to the general rules of contract interpretation. Marion Cty. Law Enforcement Assn. v.

Sandberg v. JC PENNEY CO. INC.

243 Or. App. 342 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 1, 2011

ORS 656.005(7)(a). 1 The relevant facts in this case are undisputed; thus, we review the board’s determination for errors of law. ORS 656.298(7); ORS 183.482(8); American Medical Response v. … (quoting Smith v. Workmen’s Comp. App. Bd., 69 Cal 2d 814, 825, 447 P2d 365 (1968)); see also Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. v.

Office Depot, Inc. v. Joerres

195 Or. App. 756 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 20, 2004

SAIF v. Danboise, 147 Or App 550 , 937 P2d 127 , rev den, 325 Or 438 (1997), is helpful in resolving the issue here. … Manley v. SAIF, 181 Or App 431, 437 , 45 P3d 1027 (2002). Insurer never denied the instability; therefore, it was properly rated as a direct medical sequela.

Plotkin v. State Accident Insurance Fund

280 Or. App. 812 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 8, 2016

Neumann v. Liles, 358 Or 706, 723 , 369 P3d 1117 (2016); see Staten v. … See Neumann v.

Silveira v. Larch Enterprises

133 Or. App. 297 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 8, 1995

Claimant seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board (Board) affirming employer’s denial of his claim. He argues that the Board erred in its treatment of his out-of-state employment with employer. … See Wootten v. Stadeli Pump & Construction, 108 Or App 548 , 816 P2d 689 (1991); Olson v. EBI Co., 78 Or App 261 , 715 P2d 1348 (1986); Miville v. SAIF, 76 Or App 603 , 710 P2d 159 (1985).

SAIF Corporation v. Miguez

249 Or. App. 388 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 18, 2012

See ETU, Inc. v. … Compare Gienger v.

SAIF Corp. v. Nehl

149 Or. App. 309 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 23, 1997

SAIF Corporation moves for reconsideration of our previous opinion, SAIF v. … We allow the motion to clarify our opinion and to respond to SAIF’s argument that our opinion in this case is inconsistent with our opinion in Robinson v.

State v. Dahl

185 Or. App. 149 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 20, 2002

See ORS 153.008(2) (providing that “[c]onviction of a violation does not give rise to any disability or legal disadvantage based on conviction of a crime.”); cf. *154 Brown v. Multnomah County Dist. … Bandini Petroleum Co. v. Superior Ct., 284 US 8, 18-19 , 52 S Ct 103 , 76 L Ed 136 (1931) (emphasis added). In State Land Board v.

Thompson v. Cupp

5 Or. App. 393 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 13, 1971

State ex rel Gilmore v. Cupp, 1 Or App 22, 24 , 458 P2d 711 (1969); Whalen v. Gladden, 249 Or 12 , 436 P2d 560 (1968); Anderson v. Alexander, 191 Or 409 , 229 P2d 633 , 230 P2d 770 (1951). As Whalen v. … The burden of proof of arbitrary action on the part of the board rested *395 •with Thompson. State ex rel Gilmore v. Cupp, supra. He failed to meet this burden. Affirmed.

Russell v. State Accident Insurance Fund

29 Or. App. 295 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 2, 1977

See, e.g., Kinney v. S.I.A.C., 245 Or 543 , 423 P2d 186 (1967); Newell v. Taylor et al, 212 Or 522, 527-28 , 321 P2d 294 (1958). … Semler v. Cook-Waite Lab., Inc., 203 Or 139 , 278 P2d 150 (1955); Peters et al. v. McKay et al., 195 Or 412 , 238 P2d 225 , 246 P2d 585 (1952); Haas v. Myers, 10 Or App 495 , 500 P2d 1068 (1972).

State v. Unger

276 Or. App. 445 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 10, 2016

State v. … See ORAP 5.45(1) (authorizing review of errors apparent on the record); State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355 , 800 P2d 259 (1990) (describing requirements for plain error review); see also Ailes v.

Minton v. Employment Division

57 Or. App. 348 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 12, 1982

In McPherson *351 v. Emp. … The Board has not addressed that issue; it must. See Bremer v. Employment Division, 52 Or App 293 , 628 P2d 426 (1981).