Case law

Oliver v. Norstar, Inc.

116 Or. App. 333 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 12, 1992

We agree with the Board that, when the misconduct is such that a penalty may be assessed under ORS 656.262(10), no fees are available under ORS 656.382(1). See Martinez v. … Accordingly, we agree with the Board that attorney fees are not available under ORS 656.382. Affirmed.

Kim and Kinnersley

337 Or. App. 503 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 29, 2025

See, e.g., State v. … State v.

Lamb v. Lane County

70 Or. App. 364 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 24, 1984

If he is, then the Board must recognize Lamb’s right to appeal as a person “aggrieved” under ORS 215.422. Overton v. Benton County, supra. In Jefferson Landfill Comm. v. … Lane County ordinances permit discretionary review by the Board, but also “permit” *367 LUBA review without an appeal to the Board. Because the county may not do that, Lyke v.

SAIF Corp. v. Basham

112 Or. App. 6 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 4, 1992

Aetna Casualty Co. v. Aschbacher, 107 Or App 494 , 812 P2d 844 , rev den 312 Or 150 (1991). … The circumstances under which we may simply remand a case do not include an error of law of the type in Aetna Casualty Co. v.

Lane Transit District v. Lane County

146 Or. App. 109 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 29, 1997

See Boytano v. Fritz, 321 Or 498, 501-02 , 901 P2d 835 (1995). In Foster v. … In Rose v.

Taylor v. State Accident Insurance Fund

40 Or. App. 437 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 29, 1979

The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed that order. … The Board affirmed, with one member dissenting. 1 We reverse. In Wingfield v.

McGarry v. State Accident Insurance Fund

24 Or. App. 883 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 29, 1976

As required by Wait v. Montgomery Ward, Inc., supra, the Board based its determination that Dr. … The Board summarized its determination in the following manner: "The Board has held, in essence, that Dr.

Rose v. Saif Corp.

200 Or. App. 654 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 27, 2005

In Yancy v. … The board agreed, and we affirmed.

State v. Campbell

289 Or. App. 442 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 28, 2017

The Supreme Court recognized one such exception, the automobile exception, in State v. Brown , 301 Or. 268 , 273-79, 721 P.2d 1357 (1986). … State v.

In THE MATTER OF MORTON v. Northwest Foundry and Furnace

36 Or. App. 259 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 18, 1978

See Barackman v. General Telephone, 25 Or App 293 , 548 P2d 1341 (1976). However, here the Board neither increased nor decreased the previous award and thus its order is not subject to appeal. … the case may be, made by the board on its own motion.”

Lasley v. Ontario Rendering

114 Or. App. 543 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 12, 1992

See SAIF v. Severson, 105 Or App 67, 70 , 803 P2d 1203 (1990), mod 109 Or App 136 , 817 P2d 1352 (1991). … The Board’s determination that the Director did not abuse his discretion in disqualifying claimant under subsection (7) rather than subsection (10) is supported by the Board’s findings and is not erroneous as a matter of

Cato v. Alcoa-Reynolds Metals Co.

210 Or. App. 721 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 7, 2007

PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606 , 859 P2d 1143 (1993). … See generally Smothers v.

Brummell v. Clark

31 Or. App. 405 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 27, 1977

See Fisher et al v. City of Astoria, 126 Or 268, 280 , 269 P 853 (1928); Beaverton v. I. A. Fire Fighters, 20 Or App 293, 300 , 531 P2d 730 (1975). … Carson v. Kozer, 126 Or 641, 647 , 270 P 513 (1928). We thus cannot reach the constitutionality of the initiative measure at this time. See Oregon AFL-CIO v. Weldon, 256 Or 307, 312 , 473 P2d 664 (1970); Johnson v.

Maroon v. Great Western Construction

107 Or. App. 510 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 5, 1991

The Board affirmed those determinations, and we agree that they are correct. The Board also “[a]greed with the Referee that claimant was a sole proprietor.” … All the other evidence weighs so heavily against a finding that Great Western was claimant’s business that the Board could not reasonably have found that claimant was its sole proprietor. 2 Younger v.

Long v. Tualatin Valley Fire

163 Or. App. 397 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 13, 1999

Claimant seeks judicial review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board (Board) denying compensation for his heart condition. … Citing our opinion on remand in Wright v.

LeGore v. Self-Insured Management Services

157 Or. App. 229 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 25, 1998

The Board has jurisdiction of matters concerning a claim. ORS 656.704; SAIF v. Wright, 312 Or 132, 136 , 817 P2d 1317 (1991). … In EBI Companies v.

Compensation of Million v. State Accident Insurance Fund

45 Or. App. 1097 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 28, 1980

The denial was further affirmed by both the Workers’ Compensation Board and this Court. Million v. SAIF, 35 Or App 269 , 581 P2d 136 (1978). … Taylor v. Baker, 279 Or 139, 144 , 566 P2d 884 (1977); Dean v. Exotic Veneers Inc., 271 Or 188, 194 , 531 P2d 266 (1975).

Fred Meyer, Inc. v. Hofstetter

151 Or. App. 21 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 22, 1997

Employer seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board (Board) in which the Board set aside employer’s denial of claimant’s claim and remanded the claim for processing. … Wright Schuchart Harbor v. Johnson, 133 Or App 680, 685 , 893 P2d 560 (1995).

Kelsey v. Drushella-Klohk NCE

128 Or. App. 53 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 18, 1994

The failure to timely file and serve all parties with a request for Board review requires dismissal, Mosley v. … See Argonaut Insurance v. King, supra; Zurich Ins. Co. v. Diversified Risk Management, supra. There is another reason why we conclude that DIF was entitled to be served with a copy of the request for Board review.

Pollock v. Tri-Met, Inc.

144 Or. App. 431 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 13, 1996

The Board subsequently upheld the denial, relying in part on our holding in Good Samaritan Hospital *434 v. Stoddard, 126 Or App 69 , 867 P2d 543 , rev den 319 Or 572 (1994). This petition for review followed. … See, e.g., International Paper Co. v.