Case law

SAIF Corp. v. Batey

153 Or. App. 634 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 29, 1998

SAIF then asserts that in Corona v. … This is not a case, such as Britton v. Board of Podiatary Examiners, 53 Or App 544 , 632 P2d 1273 , rev den 292 Or 109 (1981), and Jensen v.

Blamires v. Clean Pak Systems, Inc.

171 Or. App. 263 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 6, 2000

He contends that the Board erred in affirming the employer’s denials of coverage because its denials were premature under Croman Corp. v. Serrano, 163 Or App 136 , 986 P2d 1253 (1999). … July 8,1998: The second closure is set aside by the hearings division; claimant appeals to the Board. September 24,1998: The Board reverses the ALJ and reinstates the March 17 denial.

Harrison v. Taylor Lumber & Treating, Inc.

111 Or. App. 325 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 12, 1992

Cook v. Workers’ Compensation Department, 306 Or 134, 138 , 758 P2d 854 (1988). The pertinent rules here are not inconsistent with the agency’s statutory authority. … The Board adopted the referee’s findings.

Bayer v. Goldschmidt

17 Or. App. 334 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 6, 1974

No claim is made that the Board acted erroneously, i.e., made procedural errors, or exceeded its jurisdiction. See Baker v. Steele et al, 229 Or 498, *336 501 , 366 P2d 726 (1961); Bechtold et al. v. … Evans v. Schrunk, supra.

McFetridge v. Wieck

7 Or. App. 389 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 26, 1971

See also, Edwards v. Union H. S. Dist. No. 8, 198 Or 611 , 258 P2d 148 (1953). The trial court concluded that the election was ,in all respects valid and that the school board was *391 authorized to sell the bonds. … oral testimony here to supplement the minutes of the August 8 meeting to determine whether or not the common eon-sent required by ORS 332.045 for the holding of that meeting was obtained. *394 The Supreme Court in McBee v.

Chisholm v. State Accident Insurance Fund

26 Or. App. 627 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 30, 1976

The circuit court on appeal from the board order reversed the board and held that the appeal period ran from the date of the correcting order. The state appeals. … In Mendenhall v. SAIF, 16 Or App 136 , 517 P2d 706 , Sup Ct review denied (1974), we said: "In Hammond v.

Housing Authority of Portland v. Zimmerly

108 Or. App. 596 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 4, 1991

Aetna Casualty Co. v. Aschbacher, 107 Or App 494 , 812 P2d 844 (1991). … The Board found that the primary causes of her mental disorder were her job reassignment and the relocation to a different office. Those were real events. 2 Sibley v.

Wausau Insurance v. Morris

103 Or. App. 270 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 5, 1990

Employer’s insurer seeks review of the Board’s decision that he is also entitled to benefits for temporary total disability until he becomes medically stationary or is released for work. The Board relied on Dawkins v. … SAIF v. Stephen, 308 Or 41, 47-48 , 774 P2d 1103 (1989).

Ragan v. Fred Meyer, Inc.

73 Or. App. 363 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 1, 1985

In the alternative, she contends that the Board’s order of May 27,1983, was issued before the Supreme Court’s decision in Price and that she did not seek review of the Board’s order because of our decision in Jones v. … An appeal of the portion of the Board’s order remanding the claim to the referee would have been premature. Jones v. SAIF, supra.

Smurfit Newsprint v. DeRosset

118 Or. App. 368 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 3, 1993

EBI, as Smurfit’s insurer at the time of the 1977 injury, authorized knee replacement surgery and requested that the Board reopen the 1977 claim on its own motion. The Board did so. … In SAIF v.

Vandehey v. Pumilite Glass & Building Co.

35 Or. App. 187 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 5, 1978

The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the referee’s opinion. Claimant appeals. We affirm. … Claimant relies on Cavins v. SAIF, supra.

Boehr v. Mid-Willamette Valley Food

109 Or. App. 292 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 23, 1991

O’Leary v. Valley View Cutting, 107 Or App 103, 106 , 810 P2d 1324 (1991). However, we do not agree with the Board’s conclusion that it could not award attorney fees. … The Board analyzed the case under ORS 656.262(10). However, as established in Randall v. Liberty Northwest Ins.

Anderson v. West Union Village Square

44 Or. App. 685 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 25, 1980

Anderson v. West Union Village Square, 43 Or App 295 , 602 P2d 1092 (1979). Claimant petitioned for review in the Supreme Court, and under Rule 10.10 the case is automatically before us on reconsideration. … It would be procedurally unfair for the Board or this court to rule on such an issue when a claimant has been lulled into inaction by the employer’s apparent acquiescence. We recognized these principles in Neely v.

Sauer v. Pioneer Adjustment Co.

44 Or. App. 715 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 25, 1980

On review, the Board said, relying on language from Larsen v. State Ind. Acc. … Unlike the situation in Otto v.

Konell v. Konell

48 Or. App. 551 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 6, 1980

The Workers’ Compensation Board (Board) reversed. 1 Employer appeals. We review de novo. ORS 656.298(6); Coday v. Willamette Tug & Barge, 250 Or 39 , 440 P2d 224 (1968); Brenner v. … Miller v. Granite Construction Co., 28 Or App 473 , 559 P2d 944 (1977); Fredrickson v.

Multifoods Specialty Distribution v. McAtee

164 Or. App. 654 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 29, 1999

In SAIF v. … In Sanford v.

Naito v. Naito

178 Or. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 14, 2001

See, e.g., Baker v. Commercial Body Builders, 264 Or 614, 628-29 , 507 P2d 387 (1973); see also Cooke v. Fresh Express Foods Corp., 169 Or App 101, 108-09 , 7 P3d 717 (2000); Chiles v. … See Naito v.

Taylor v. SAIF

Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 15, 2023

See Dotson v. … See OEA v.

Robinson v. Nabisco, Inc.

143 Or. App. 59 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 28, 1996

In Hicks v. … We note that the Board was without the benefit of our decision in Barrett Business Services v.

Cameron Logging v. Jones

109 Or. App. 391 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 30, 1991

Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co., 90 Or App 200, 205 , 752 P2d 312 (1988). Although the order contains explicit findings of fact, it does not explain why they lead to the Board’s conclusions. … Misallocation of the burden of proof is a procedural error, Harris v.