Case law

Fazzolari v. United Beer Distributors

91 Or. App. 592 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 22, 1988

As we stated in Vip’s Restaurant v. Krause, 89 Or App 214 , 748 P2d 164 (1988), ORS 656.268 deals only with the processing of claims. … ORS 656.210; Cutright v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 299 Or 290, 295 , 702 P2d 403 (1985).

Safeway Stores v. Owsley

91 Or. App. 475 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 15, 1988

Employer contends that the Board should not have reached that issue, because claimant waived it. We conclude that the Board was free to make any disposition of the case that it deemed appropriate. Destael v. … In our view, that issue has been resolved against claimant in Fink v.

State Accident Insurance Fund Corp. v. Griffith

66 Or. App. 709 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 25, 1984

Nevertheless, a majority of the Board affirmed the referee’s finding that the claim was compensable. 1 In so finding, the majority relied on our decision in McGarrah v. … McGarrah v. SAIF, supra, 296 Or at 163 . On de novo review, we agree with the Board’s conclusion that the alleged harassment of claimant was merely perceived.

Compensation of Mavis v. State Accident Insurance Fund

45 Or. App. 1059 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 28, 1980

The Workers’ Compensation Board ordered SAIF to pay claimant temporary total disability (TTD) for about three months of time loss and a 25 percent penalty because of unreasonable denial of his claim. … Candee v. SAIF, 40 Or App 567 , 595 P2d 1381 , den 287 Or 355 (1979).

Liberty Northwest Insurance v. Church

106 Or. App. 477 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 3, 1991

Kinsman contends, relying on Newport Seafood v. … ORS 656.005(13); ORS 656.005(27); Martelli v. R.A. Chambers and Associates, 310 Or 529 , 800 P2d 766 (1990). The Board’s findings support only the conclusion that claimant was employed by Kinsman, not N & S.

McManus v. State Accident Insurance Fund

3 Or. App. 373 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 10, 1970

The hearing officer and Workmen’s Compensation Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) each had allowed 15 per cent. Claimant’s left knee was injured in an on-the-job accident on September 9, 1967. … When the Board reviewed, it went outside the record and considered Dr. Puziss’ report, a copy of which is attached to its opinion. This was error, for OKS 656.295 (3) and (5) limit the Board to the record.

Rice v. Columbia Steel Casting

129 Or. App. 82 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 6, 1994

In 1989, his condition worsened and the Board ordered employer to accept the claim for an occupational disease. John J. Rice, 42 Van Natta 2513 (1990), aff’d without opinion Connecticut Indemnity v. … The Board’s order on reconsideration does not refer to these law of the case and issue preclusion arguments.

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.

Morgan v. Stimson Lumber Co.

38 Or. App. 579 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 20, 1979

Petitioner/employer challenges a Workers’ Compensation Board order that it pay a penalty and attorney fees 1 pursuant to a Board administrative rule. … Newspaper Pub. v. Peterson, 244 Or 116, 123 , 415 P2d 21 (1966). The agency points to no other statute that grants it the authority claimed. Affirmed as modified.

SAIF Corp. v. Pendergast-Long

155 Or. App. 633 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 2, 1998

Petitioners seek reconsideration of our decision in SAIF v. … Petitioners contend that, under the Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in SAIF v.

R. A. Gray & Co. v. McKenzie

57 Or. App. 426 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 19, 1982

Gray & Co. v. McKenzie, 56 Or App 394 , 641 P2d 672 (1982), which affirmed an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board, awarding claimant compensation for permanent and total disability. … Gas-Ice Corporation v. Newbern, 263 Or 227, 234 , 501 P2d 1288 (1972).

Barrett v. D & H Drywall

86 Or. App. 605 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 29, 1987

Barrett v. D & H Drywall, 70 Or App 123 , 688 P2d 130 (1984). Claimant asserts that the Board applied an incorrect test of causation and that the case should again be remanded to the Board for reconsideration. … See Jacobson v. SAIF, 36 Or App 789 , 585 P2d 1146 (1978).

Scarino v. Saif Corp.

91 Or. App. 350 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 1, 1988

The Board concluded that it should. We reverse. … SAIF relies on SAIF v.

Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Leonard

151 Or. App. 307 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 19, 1997

Drews v. FBI Companies, 310 Or 134, 140 , 795 P2d 531 (1990) (quoting Rennie v. Freeway Transport, 294 Or 319, 323 , 656 P2d 919 (1982)). … See Scheuning v. J. R.

Wy'East Education Ass'n v. Oregon Trail School District No. 46

244 Or. App. 194 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 13, 2011

AFSCME Local 88 v. … See OPEU and Termine v.

State v. Maney

244 Or. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 29, 2011

State v. Thompson, 328 Or 248 , 971 P2d 879 , cert den, 527 US 1042 (1999). … Martini v. Beaverton Ins. Agency, Inc., 314 Or 200, 211 , 838 P2d 1061 (1992).

Lucky v. State Accident Insurance Fund

27 Or. App. 565 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 29, 1976

Dissatisfied with the Board’s order, claimant appealed to the circuit court. … Compare: Brusco v. B.P. John Furniture, 26 Or App 831 , 554 P2d 562 (1976); Scown v. SAIF, 22 Or App 354 , 539 P2d 160 (1975); Suell v. SAIF, 22. Or App 201, 538 P2d 84 (1975); House v.

Moreno v. Menlo Logistics, Inc.

171 Or. App. 675 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 27, 2000

Uris v. Compensation Dept. 247 Or 420, 426 , 427 P2d 753 (1967); Barnett v. SAIF, 122 Or App 279, 283 , 857 P2d 228 (1993). … SAIF v. Grant, 135 Or App 293, 297 , 897 P2d 1200 (1995).

Sosnoski v. SAIF Corp.

184 Or. App. 88 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 2, 2002

ORS 656.298(7); ORS 183.482(8); Proctor v. SAIF, 123 Or App 326 , 860 P2d 828 (1993). We reverse the board and reinstate the AU’s order setting aside employer’s denial of compensability. … Compare [Sabin Corp. v.]

Fred Meyer, Inc. v. Farrow

122 Or. App. 164 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 4, 1993

The Board affirmed and adopted the referee’s order. On review, employer does not contest the Board’s findings. … Perry v. SAIF, 307 Or 654 , 772 P2d 418 (1989); Smith v. SAIF, 302 Or 396 , 730 P2d 30 (1986).