Case law

Bergeron v. Ontario Rendering Co.

34 Or. App. 1025 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 20, 1978

The determination order from which claimant sought review was mailed to claimant by the Board on October 8, 1975. … In Norton v. Compensation Department, 252 Or 75, 448 P2d 382 (1968), the court was faced with essentially the same issue.

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.

Washington Group International v. Barela

218 Or. App. 541 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 19, 2008

In Roberts v. … Corp. v. Nichols, 186 Or App 664 , 64 P3d 1152 (2003). In that case, the claimant broke a tooth while chewing on a hard candy during work.

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.

Mayes v. Boise Cascade Corp.

46 Or. App. 333 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 27, 1980

In Mikolich v. State Ind. Acc. … In Ward v.

State v. Ayala

301 Or. App. 171 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 4, 2019

The state concedes that, under State v. Noe, 242 Or App 530, 256 P3d 166 (2011), the verdicts on these offenses should merge. We accept the state’s concession on that point. … See State v. Trickel, 270 Or App 250, 347 P3d 344 (2015); State v. Brown, 263 Or App 751, 752, 330 P3d 1249 (2014). Again, we agree. We therefore exercise our discretion to review for the reasons set forth in State 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.

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.

Short v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp.

79 Or. App. 423 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 21, 1986

The Board also awarded $750 for services on Board review. On claimant’s motion for reconsideration, the Board declined to increase the attorney fees award. … Silsby v. SAIF, 39 Or App 555, 564 , 592 P2d 1074 (1979). We will alter an award only in a case of manifest abuse of discretion. SAIF v. Peoples, 59 Or App 593, 595 , 651 P2d 1359 (1982); Bentley v.

Freres Lumber Co. v. Jegglie

106 Or. App. 27 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 20, 1991

The Board affirmed and adopted the referee’s order, and commented: “Recently, the Court of Appeals in Cowart v. … Cowart v. SAIF, 94 Or App at 291 . Although the evidence in this case is different, it support’s the Board’s finding that, as in Cowart , claimant reasonably left the legal pursuit of his claim to his attorney.

State v. Noble

94 Or. App. 123 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 31, 1989

By its terms, ORS 161.620 prohibits only mandatory minimum sentences. 1 Mandatory minimum sentences are *126 those which neither the court nor the parole board has discretion to alter. 2 See State v. … See State v. Turner, 296 Or 451, 456-57 , 676 P2d 873 (1984).

State v. Soriano

68 Or. App. 642 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 13, 1984

THE FEDERAL ABANDONMENT OF TRANSACTIONAL IMMUNITY Brown v. … Ex Parte Rowe, 7 Cal 184 (1857); People v. Sharp, supra, n 4, 107 NY at 442 ; Brown v. Walker, 161 US 591, 598 , 16 S Ct 644 , 40 L Ed 819 (1896); but see Brown v.

Polk County Intermediate Education District v. Employment Division

24 Or. App. 169 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 26, 1976

Scoggins/Yost/Strong v. Morgan, 11 Or App 502 , 503 P2d 509 (1972). *174 The Board found that: "Claimant requested a leave of absence of up to six months in accordance with the policy of the employer. … In Wood v. *175 Morgan, 17 Or App 579, 583 , 523 P2d 572 (1974) we said: "This court cannot substitute its fact judgment for that of the Appeals Board. ORS 183.480 (6-8).