Case law

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.

Rash v. McKinstry Co.

160 Or. App. 131 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 28, 1999

Claimant seeks review of a Workers’ Compensation Board (Board) order ruling that insurer’s hen rights, pursuant to ORS 656.580 and ORS 656.593, on claimant’s third-party settlement proceeds were not resolved by the parties … The last antecedent is ‘the last word, phrase, or clause that can be made an antecedent without impairing the meaning of the sentence.’ ” State v. Webb, 324 Or 380, 386 , 927 P2d 79 (1996) (quoting Norman J.

Gage v. Fred Meyer Stores - Kroger Co.

Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 6, 2023

ORS 183.482(8)(a), (c); SAIF v. … See State v.

Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. v. Potts

119 Or. App. 252 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 21, 1993

The Board was not required to address the other factors. 2 Affirmed. 1 ORS 701.025 was renumbered ORS 670.600 in 1991. 2 Liberty relies on Timberline Lodge v. Kyle, 97 Or App 239 , 775 P2d 899 (1989). … We remanded the case, because the Board had not made specific findings as to some of the required factors.

SAIF Corp. v. Grant

135 Or. App. 293 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 28, 1995

Furnish v. Montavilla Lumber Co., 124 Or 622 , 625, 863 P2d 523 (1993). … See Skochenko v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 118 Or App 241, 245 , 846 P2d 1212 (1993). We cannot speculate whether, had the Board correctly evaluated Takacs’ opinion, it still would have found Baum’s opinion more persuasive.

Reynolds v. Employment Department

243 Or. App. 88 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 25, 2011

After we affirmed without opinion, the Supreme Court vacated our decision and remanded for reconsideration in light of McDowell v. Employment Dept., 348 Or 605 , 236 P3d 722 (2010). … The board made no findings regarding that policy.

Jakob v. Dunes City

51 Or. App. 505 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 6, 1981

the following statement (labeled by LCDC to be a "determination”): "The Land Conservation and Development Commission was unable to concur in any action on the allegations of *508 goal violations in LUBA 80-032, Dunes City v. … The commission shall issue its determination on the recommendation of the board and return the determination to the board for inclusion in the board’s order under section 5 of this 1979 Act within such time as is necessary

Lloyd v. Employee Benefits Insurance

96 Or. App. 591 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 17, 1989

The referee and the Board have jurisdiction over *594 “matters concerning a claim under ORS 656.001 to 656.794.” ORS 656.708; 2 see also ORS 656.283; ORS 656.289(3); ORS 656.295; SAIF v. … Neither the statutes nor their purposes persuade us that the Board has jurisdiction over what is, after all, a matter between EBI and Bankers Life that does not affect claimant. See EBI Companies v.

Bicknell v. State Accident Insurance Fund

8 Or. App. 567 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 30, 1972

The Board and circuit court disagreed and reversed the hearing officer’s order. The burden of proof of employment injury is on the claimant. Coday v. Willamette Tug & Barge, 250 Or 39 , 440 P2d 224 (1968). … Although respectful consideration is given to the findings of the hearing officer, this court, the circuit court and the Board are not bound by those findings. Blisserd v. SAIF, 6 Or App 111 , 486 P2d 1312 (1971).

Price v. Employment Division

60 Or. App. 279 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 10, 1982

See Beaverton School Dist. v. Employment Division, 29 Or App 487 , 564 P2d 717 (1977), and City of Milwaukie v. Employment Division, 30 Or App 693 , 567 P2d 1061 (1977). … Instead, the Board relies upon two 1977 decisions of this court construing what is good cause for leaving work. The Board’s approach is inappropriate. In Sothras v.

United Airlines v. Clark

240 Or. App. 13 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 29, 2010

See Schoch v. Leupold & Stevens, 325 Or 112, 118 , 934 P2d 410 (1997) (substantial reason requirement necessitates “a sufficient explanation to allow a reviewing court to examine the agency’s action”). … We conclude that the record as a whole contains substantial evidence to support the board’s findings. Armstrong v. Asten-Hill, 90 Or App 200, 206 , 752 P2d 312 (1988). Affirmed.

Urness v. Liberty Northwest Insurance

130 Or. App. 454 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 5, 1994

Corp. v. Golden, 116 Or App 64 , 840 P2d 1362 (1992), rev den 315 Or 442 (1993), and we summarize those facts necessary for our review. … Liberty Northwest Corporation v. Golden, supra, 116 Or App at 67-68 .

Armstrong v. State Accident Insurance Fund

58 Or. App. 602 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 18, 1982

Relying on Stroh v. SAIF, 1471 Or 117 , 492 P2d 472 (1972); Wisherd v. Paul Koch Volkswagen, 28 Or App 513 , 559 P2d 1305 (1977); and Stevens v. … Relying principally on Lindsey v.

Bryant v. Clackamas County

56 Or. App. 442 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 22, 1982

See Thunderbird Motel, Inc. v. City of Portland, 40 Or App 697 , 596 P2d 994 , rev den 287 Or 409 (1979). … See Haugen v. Gleason et al, 226 Or 99 , 359 P2d 108 (1961); Terry v. City of Portland et al, 204 Or 478 , 269 P2d 544 (1955).

State v. Wilson

111 Or. App. 147 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 12, 1992

From this list, the Guidelines Board adopted the nonexclusive factors set forth in this rule. … State v. McAlpin, 108 Wn 2d 458, 740 P2d 824 (1987); State v. Nordby, 106 Wn 2d 514, 723 P2d 1117 (1986); State v. Davis, 53 Wash App 306, 766 P2d 1120 (1989).

Medford Corp. v. Smith

110 Or. App. 486 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 8, 1992

Under Bracke v. Baza’r, 293 Or 239 , 646 P2d 1330 (1982), the Board correctly held that, in the absence of disability, the date of the onset of the disease is the date on which claimant first sought medical treatment. … The parties agree that, in view oí Aetna Casualty Co. v.

Penland v. Redwood Sanitary Sewer Service District

146 Or. App. 225 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 5, 1997

See Hale v. … Lowrimore v. Dimmitt, [ 310 Or 291, 296 , 797 P2d 1027 (1990)].” In McBride v.

Campbell v. Employment Department

256 Or. App. 682 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 15, 2013

Endres v. DMV, 255 Or App 226, 229 , 297 P3d 505 (2013). … Kercher v. Employment Dept., 250 Or App 409, 411 , 280 P3d 1040 (2012).

McKinney v. G. L. Pine, Inc.

16 Or. App. 619 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 11, 1974

Larson v. Compensation Department, 251 Or 478 , 445 P2d 486 (1968). … Larson v. Compensation Department, supra.

Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Martinez

239 Or. App. 224 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 1, 2010

Employer requested review by the board, and the board affirmed. … State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 171-72 , 206 P3d 1042 (2009); PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 610-12 , 859 P2d 1143 (1993).