Case law

Swartout v. Employment Department

244 Or. App. 688 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 3, 2011

Moreover, if the [board] makes no findings, ipso facto its order cannot be supported by substantial reason.” Opp v. Employment Dept., 242 Or App 673, 676 , 259 P3d 15 (2011). … McPherson v. Employment Division, 285 Or 541, 557 , 591 P2d 1381 (1979);Londahl v. Employment Division, 72 Or App 366, 370 , 695 P2d 1388 (1985).

Chapman v. Employment Division

62 Or. App. 676 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 27, 1983

It was, therefore, improper for the Board to decide against claimant on this basis.” 38 Or App at 413 . Accord, Swezey v. Employment Division, 47 Or App 923, 615 P2d 1103 (1980). … It is a matter to be determined from the facts in a given case under de novo review by this Board.”

Vergara v. Patel

305 Or. App. 288 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 8, 2020

Soon after Nees, the court considered whether a claim for wrongful dis- charge was available to the plaintiffs in two cases: Walsh v. Consolidated Freightways, 278 Or 347, 563 P2d 1205 (1977), and Brown v. … Compare Delaney v.

Younger v. City of Portland

86 Or. App. 211 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 24, 1987

Petitioners contend that that test should be revised in accordance with the concurring opinion of Judge Gillette in Brown v. … That amendment did not apply to our review in Brown v. AFSD, supra. We have not construed the scope of our factual review under the statute as amended.

SAIF Corp. v. Taylor

126 Or. App. 658 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 9, 1994

As we held in Sandoval v. … Compare Silsby v. SAIF, 39 Or App 555, 561 , 592 P2d 1074 (1979). Affirmed.

Hill v. State Accident Insurance Fund

25 Or. App. 697 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 14, 1976

Closing and Evaluation Division of the Board, referee and Workmen’s Compensation Board had successively awarded 144 degrees for 45 percent unscheduled disability. … Deaton v. SAIF, 13 Or App 298 , 509 P2d 1215 (1973).

Smith v. Employment Division

34 Or. App. 623 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 30, 1978

On the first appeal, Smith v. … We conclude, as did the Board, that claimant terminated her employment voluntarily and without good cause. Affirmed.

Levasseur v. Armon

240 Or. App. 250 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 29, 2010

State ex rel. v. Mart, 135 Or 603, 613 , 295 P 459 (1931); see also Hickman v. Six Dimen. Cust. … See, e.g., Glover v.

BASIN TIRE SERVICE, INC. v. Minyard

240 Or. App. 715 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 16, 2011

Corp., Inc. v. Watkins, 347 Or. 687, 690-91 , 227 P.3d 1134 (2010). … See, e.g., Robinson v.

Arndt v. National Appliance Co.

74 Or. App. 20 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 5, 1985

ORS 656.206(1)(a); Livesay v. *26 SAIF, 55 Or App 390 , 637 P2d 1370 (1981); Butcher v. SAIF, 45 Or App 313 , 608 P2d 575 (1980). … Gettman v. SAIF, 289 Or 609 , 616 P2d 473 (1980).

Employment Department v. Clark

187 Or. App. 431 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 1, 2003

We review the board’s interpretation of ORS 657.310 for errors of law. Confederated Tribes (Siletz) v. Employment Dept., 165 Or App 65, 68 , 995 P2d 580 (2000). … In Stull v.

Coquille School District 8 v. Castillo

212 Or. App. 596 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 16, 2007

In Norden v. … Gaynor v. Board of Parole, 165 Or App 609, 612 , 996 P2d 1020 (2000) (citing SAIF v. Shipley, 326 Or 557, 561 , 955 P2d 244 (1998), and Campbell v.

Barrett Business Services v. Williams

148 Or. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 7, 1997

Additionally, substantial evidence supports the Board’s findings as to the assignment of responsibility. Accordingly, we affirm the Board. … We think that the Board’s analysis is the correct one. Contrary to the position taken by employer, the Supreme Court’s opinion in SAIF v.

Grace v. SAIF Corp.

76 Or. App. 511 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 20, 1985

SAIF moved to dismiss this review on the ground that the Board’s decision was not a final order. That would be true if the Board had only made a determination as to whether claimant was medically stationary. See Dean v. … Boise Cascade, 298 Or 452 , 693 P2d 632 (1984), Hutcheson v. Weyerhaeuser, 288 Or 51 , 602 P2d 268 (1979), *516 and Weller v.

Elvin v. Oregon Public Employees Union

102 Or. App. 159 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 13, 1990

Oregon Public Employees Union (OPEU) seeks review of an order of the Employment Relations Board (ERB). … See Tierney v. City of Toledo, 824 F2d 1497 (6th Cir 1987); Gibney v. Toledo Bd. of Educ., 40 Ohio St 3d 152, 532 NE 2d 1300 (1988); Lowary v. Lexington Local Bd. of Educ., 854 F2d 131 (6th Cir 1988); Gilpin v.

Sheridan v. Johnson Creek Market

149 Or. App. 44 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 2, 1997

Kessler v. Board of Parole, 145 Or App 584, 590 , 931 P2d 801 (1997). No error is apparent on the face of the record. … Those procedural matters were at issue in She0ridan v. Johnson Creek Market, 127 Or App 259 , 873 P2d 328 (1994).

Scheidemantel v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp.

70 Or. App. 552 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 31, 1984

See Ferguson v. Industrial Indemnity, 70 Or App 46 , 687 P2d 1130 (1984); Chatfield v. SAIF, 70 Or App 62 , 688 P2d 434 (1984); see also Mesa v. Barker, 66 Or App 161, 164 , 672 P2d 1378 (1983); Lucky v. … However, determination of the amount of penalties and attorney fees is a matter the Board must resolve initially. ORS 656.262(10), 656.382(1).

Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Toy

174 Or. App. 275 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 9, 2001

The Workers’ Compensation Board (the Board) set aside employer’s denial of claimant’s occupational disease claim. … In any event, that objection was not raised below, and “[a]n argument that is not raised to the Board is deemed waived.” Roy v. McCormack Pacific Co., 171 Or App 526, 532 , 17 P3d 550 (2000); accord Oregon Lox Co. v.

Ahlberg v. SAIF Corp.

199 Or. App. 271 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 27, 2005

As we held in SAIF v. … ORS 174.010; PGE v.

Gordon v. City of Beaverton

52 Or. App. 937 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 29, 1981

Neppach v. Jones, 28 Or 286 , 39 P 999 , 42 P 519 (1895). … Hayes v.