Case law

UAC/KPTV Oregon TV, Inc. v. Hacke

101 Or. App. 598 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 23, 1990

As stated in Runft v. … However, in Inkley v.

Shaw v. Portland Laundry/Dry Cleaning

47 Or. App. 1041 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 25, 1980

We do not, however, agree with all of that Board’s analysis. The Board found that claimant "has sought no employment or retraining assistance.” … At oral argument in this court claimant contended that Russell v. SAIF, 281 Or 353 , 574 P2d 653 (1978), is support for the Board’s unscheduled award. We do not read Russell as applying here.

Lundy v. Employment Division

34 Or. App. 265 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 8, 1978

ORS 657.176(2)(a). 1 We paraphrase.the Board’s findings of fact. … Dietz v. Smith, 28 Or App 871 , 561 P2d 1032 (1977). Compare Hall v. Employment Division, 31 Or App 79 , 569 P2d 699 (1977), and Romanosky v.

Villafuerte v. Unger Farms

136 Or. App. 487 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 6, 1995

The referee set aside that denial and the Board reversed. Relying on Adamson v. … He contends that the Board’s reliance on Adamson is misplaced and that this case is factually similar to *490 Kiewit Pacific v. Ennis, 119 Or App 123 , 849 P2d 541 (1993).

Putnam v. Milne

13 Or. App. 540 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 25, 1973

In Thornton v. … In Miles et al. v.

Follmer v. County of Lane

5 Or. App. 185 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 11, 1971

In coming to our conclusion we have looked to see if the record made by the Board discloses an evidentiary basis for the action taken. See note: Roseta v. County of Washington, 6 Will L J 605 (December 1970). … In marked contrast to the lack of evidence and lack of a record noted in Roseta v.

Labor Ready, Inc. v. Mann

158 Or. App. 666 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 3, 1999

In Johansen v. … Jones v. Emanuel Hospital, 280 Or 147 , 570 P2d 70 (1977).

Longview Inspection v. Snyder

182 Or. App. 530 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 10, 2002

Employer appealed to the board, and the board affirmed. … In light of our decision in Sound Elevator v.

Hoke v. Libby, Mcneil & Libby

81 Or. App. 347 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 10, 1986

Employer sought review by the Board. On December 18, 1983, the Board issued an order that reversed the referee in Hoke I and reinstated employer’s denials. We affirmed. Hoke v. … Employer appealed to the Board, which reversed the referee. Claimant then sought this review.

State v. Johnston

176 Or. App. 418 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 5, 2001

Gaynor v. … See State v.

Bernards v. Wright

93 Or. App. 192 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 14, 1988

The Board reversed the referee’s decision in part and held that claimant was an employe of petitioner and was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. 3 *195 Petitioner assigns as error the Board … Jenkins v. Tandy Corp, 86 Or App 133, 137 , 738 P2d 985 , rev den 304 Or *196 279 (1987). An employe is generally not within the rule if he is compensated by the employer for “travel time.” 4 Fenn v.

Stacy v. Employment Dept.

240 Or. App. 183 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 29, 2010

Stevenson v. Morgan, 17 Or.App. 428, 433 , 522 P.2d 1204 (1974). The board's order denying unemployment benefits to claimant is based on alternative reasons and conclusions. … See Pinto v.

Wilke v. State Accident Insurance Fund

49 Or. App. 427 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 24, 1980

The referee and the Workers’ Compensation Board (Board) found that the benefits should commence on the date of the referee’s order. … See also Silsby v. SAIF, 39 Or App 555 , 592 P2d 1074 (1979).

Deep Photonics Corp. v. LaChapelle

303 Or. App. 699 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 29, 2020

Rebstock v. … Horton v.

Hensel Phelps Construction v. Mirich

81 Or. App. 290 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 10, 1986

The Board affirmed. As a preliminary matter, we reject Kalt’s contention that the Board’s decision was correct because there was no new “incident” at Kalt. In Boise Cascade v. … Accord, Home Ins. v. EBI Companies, 76 Or App 112, 118 , 708 P2d 1157 (1985). However, the Board’s decision was correct for another reason.

Porras v. Castle & Cooke, Inc.

91 Or. App. 526 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 15, 1988

The scope of review, therefore, requires us to determine if the Board order is supported by substantial evidence in the record. Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co., 90 Or App 200, 205 , 752 P2d 312 (1988). … Because the Board order is inadequate for judicial review under the standards in Armstrong, 1 we remand to the Board for reconsideration. Remanded for reconsideration.

Westmoreland v. Iowa Beef Processors

70 Or. App. 642 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 7, 1984

We reverse the Board and reinstate the referee’s order. … We find that claimant has sufficiently shown a connection between his work and the injury. 1 See also Garbutt v.

Higgins v. Medical Research Foundation

48 Or. App. 29 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 2, 1980

Claimant appeals from an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board (Board) which held that claimant’s occupational disease claim was not timely filed. … Claimant did not brief this issue before the Board or this court. Since March 19, 1979, when this case was heard before the referee, the Supreme Court has decided Weller v.

Legacy Health Systems & Legacy Health System v. Noble

232 Or. App. 93 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 18, 2009

Krushwitz v. McDonald’s Restaurants, 323 Or 520, 531 , 919 P2d 465 (1996) (citing Phil A. Livesley Co. v. Russ, 296 Or 25, 28 , 672 P2d 337 (1983)). … Further, we held in Hearthstone Manor v.

Bishop v. OBEC Consulting Engineers

160 Or. App. 548 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 19, 1999

As noted, see 160 Or App at 553, the Board’s holding in that regard was based on its reading of Jones v. Emanuel Hospital. We disagree with the Board’s conclusion for two reasons. … See, e.g., Jordan v. Wiser, 302 Or 50 , 726 P2d 365 (1986); 4 Murphy v.