Case law

State v. Walker

68 Or. App. 561 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 6, 1984

In State v. … Citing State v.

Elixir Industries v. Lange

100 Or. App. 492 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 14, 1990

See, e.g., McGarry v. SAIF, 24 Or App 883 (1976). … That construction of the statute and the rule is persuasive, and we have no reason to differ from the Board’s interpretation. See 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Lane Co.), 305 Or 384, 389-92 , 752 P2d 271 (1988).

Bracke v. Baza'r, Inc.

78 Or. App. 128 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 26, 1986

Because the Board’s reduction of the penalty award was based on its erroneous holding that claimant had become medically stationary, we hold that the Board erred in reducing the penalty. See Hedlund v. … We have held that it is an *137 error for the Board to reduce attorney fees based on an erroneous reduction of TTD. Hedlund v. SAIF, supra, 55 Or App at 318 .

Kent v. Cupp

26 Or. App. 799 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 20, 1976

Hicks, 213 Or 619, 630 , 325 *803 P2d 794 (1958), cert den 359 US 917 (1959); State v. Franklin, 11 Or App 239, 240 , 502 P2d 392 (1972); State v. … State v. Puckett, 22 Or App 154, 156-57 , 538 P2d 74 (1975). The reliance of the dissent upon ORS 421.155 is misplaced.

Mount v. Department of Consumer & Business Services

181 Or. App. 458 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 8, 2002

Under Mathews v. … Koskela v. Willamette Industries, Inc., 331 Or 362 , 15 P3d 548 (2000).

Larsen v. Taylor & Co.

56 Or. App. 404 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 22, 1982

ORS 262.268(2), (3) The order of the Board is reversed, and the referee’s order is reinstated. It is clear that the Board can reach issues not raised by the parties. Russell v. … A & D Terminals, 50 Or App 27, 31 , 621 P2d 1221 (1981); Neely v. SAIF, 43 Or App 319, 323-24 , 602 P2d 1101 (1979), rev den 288 Or 493 (1980).

Barrett Business Services, Inc. v. Stewart

178 Or. App. 145 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 14, 2001

We review the Board’s understanding of what ‘later obtained evidence” means for errors of law, ORS 183.482(8)(a); Curry Educational Service Dist. v. … In Freightliner Corp. v.

SAIF Corp. v. Hansen

126 Or. App. 662 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 9, 1994

Relying on Camlu Retirement Center v. Evenhus, 102 Or App 603 , 795 P2d 606 (1990), and Oak Crest Care Center v. … The Board reversed the referee, holding that employer was barred from denying the claim retroactively when the effect would be to leave the claimant without benefits. Garcia v.

Ashman v. Children's Services Division

37 Or. App. 865 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 26, 1978

Stephens v. Dept. of State Police, 271 Or 390 , 532 P2d 788 (1975). See also Whitney v. Employment Division, 280 Or 35 , 569 P2d 1075 (1977). … ORS 183.482(8)(a); See Home Plate Inc. v.

Timm v. Maley

134 Or. App. 245 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 10, 1995

Steven Timm, the noncomplying employer (Timm (NCE)), seeks review of the Workers’ Compensation Board’s order, entered after we remanded for reconsideration, Timm v. … See Industrial Indemnity Co. v.

Pyle v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp.

55 Or. App. 965 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 8, 1982

On May 5, 1980, the Board reversed the order in its entirety. … As for travel expenses, in the recently decided case of Smith v.

State v. Sannes

218 Or. App. 728 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 19, 2008

State v. Brown, 297 Or 404, 445 , 687 P2d 751 (1984) (evidence of polygraph examination is inadmissible in a criminal trial). Reversed and remanded.

Ortiz v. Adult & Family Services Division

45 Or. App. 925 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 21, 1980

To paraphrase McPherson v. … Under the criteria identified in Oliver v.

Timm v. Maley

125 Or. App. 396 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 22, 1993

Citing Bracke v. … However, we have addressed that question in at least three cases: SAIF v. Luhrs, 63 Or App 78 , 663 P2d 418 (1983); SAIF v. Harris, 63 Or App 256 , 663 P2d 1307 , rev den 295 Or 730 (1983); and SAIF v.

Hedrick v. Employment Division

25 Or. App. 93 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 12, 1976

Following hearing, the referee likewise found her to be disqualified and on de novo review so did the Employment Appeals Board. … We find the conclusion drawn by the Employment Appeals Board to be a reasonable one under the facts of this case. See Grigsby v. Employment Div., 24 Or App 499 , 546 P2d 788 (1976). Affirmed.

Clark v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp.

50 Or. App. 139 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 26, 1981

Hewes v. SAIF, 36 Or App 91, 92 , 583 P2d 576 (1978). … In Mavis v.

Romanosky v. Employment Division

21 Or. App. 785 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 23, 1975

Georgia-Pacific v. Employment Div., 21 Or App 135 , 533 P2d 829 (1975). In Bauer v. … There was substantial evidence to support the determination of the Employment Appeals Board. Affirmed.

State v. Cantrell

125 Or. App. 458 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 22, 1993

See State v. Rathbone II, 110 Or App 419 , 823 P2d 432 (1991), rev den 313 Or 300 (1992). He argues, however, that 1993 legislation should be “persuasive authority” for his argument that the court erred. … We are not persuaded that the 1993 legislation and subsequent Board action demonstrate that the court abused its discretion in sentencing defendant under the law as it existed at the time defendant was sentenced.

State Accident Insurance Fund Corp. v. Mathews

55 Or. App. 608 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 25, 1982

The Board affirmed. … We indicated the contrary in Wisherd v.

McCoy v. Transport Indemnity Co.

27 Or. App. 437 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 22, 1976

We are unwilling to allow the motivation of claimant, required for a finding of odd-lot status in a case where the injury itself does not establish odd-lot status, see, Deaton v. … Swanson v. Westport Lumber Co., 4 Or App 417 , 479 P2d 1005 (1971). This the employer was unable to show.