Case law

Atwood v. State Accident Insurance Fund

30 Or. App. 1009 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 19, 1977

The claims for compensation in both cases were denied by the hearings officer, the Workers’ Compensation Board and the circuit court. … Uris v. Compensation Department, 247 Or 420, 429 , 427 P2d 753 , 430 P2d 861 (1967); Schartner v. Roseburg Lumber Co., 20 Or App 1, 5 , 530 P2d 545, 547 (1975); Giese v.

Kovach v. Employment Division

35 Or. App. 609 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 2, 1978

The employer appealed the referee’s decision to the Employment Appeals Board. ORS 657.275. The Board, one member dissenting, reversed the referee. … McDevitt v. Employment Division, 27 Or App 253 , 555 P2d 937 (1976). See also Ashby v. Employment Division, 21 Or App 265 , 534 P2d 1160 (1975).

Schmelzer v. Employment Division

57 Or. App. 759 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 16, 1982

Claimant seeks review of the Employment Appeals Board’s (Board) denial of unemployment benefits. … The Board concluded that “[t]he fact that she notified her manager on May 22, 1981, that she hadchanged her mind, does not change the nature of the work separation.” Accord Nickum v.

State Ex Rel. Lambert v. Hastings

22 Or. App. 213 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 28, 1975

Krahl v. Unified School District, 212 Kan 146, 509 P2d 1146 (1973). Por a general discussion concerning statutory notice requirements, see, Annotation; 92 ALR2d 751 (1963). … As the court said in Krahl v.

SAIF Corp. v. Ricker

184 Or. App. 53 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 2, 2002

Claimant did not appeal ALJ Black’s order to the Workers’ Compensation Board, and it became final on October 30, 1999. … See King v. Building Supply Discount, 133 Or App 179 , 889 P2d 1310 (1995). Reversed and remanded for reconsideration.

Lohr v. State Accident Insurance Fund

48 Or. App. 979 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 27, 1980

Wilson v. Weyerhaeuser, 30 Or App 403 , 567 P2d 567 (1977); Emerson v. ITT Continental Baking Co., supra; Mansfield v. Caplener Bros., 10 Or App 545 , 500 P2d 1221 (1972). … As noted by the court in Gettman v.

Estate of Vance v. Williams

84 Or. App. 616 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 8, 1987

SAIF v. Parker, 61 Or App 47 , 656 P2d 335 (1982). … We held in SAIF v.

SAIF Corp. v. Rapaich

130 Or. App. 216 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 14, 1994

In *219 SAIF v. O’Neal, 45 Van Natta 2081 (1993), which is pending review in this court (CA A81987), the employer was ordered to pay the attorney fee in addition to the compensation already paid. … The Board distinguished the situation, such as in SAIF v.

Alston v. Employment Division

67 Or. App. 59 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 22, 1984

Is the Board choosing to disbelieve the claimant? If so, then it needs to address the credibility issue directly. See Lewis v. Employment Division, 66 Or App 303, 307-08 , 673 P2d 1376 (1984); Christensen v. … If this is the Board’s view, it appears to ignore Sothras v. Employment Division, supra. See also Taylor v. Employment Division, 66 Or App 313 , 674 P2d 64 (1984). The Board’s findings are incomplete.

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.

Lee v. Lee

1 Or. App. 115 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 3, 1969

Rigdon v. Rigdon, 219 Or 271 , 347 P2d 43 (1959). It was reduced to writing and at a further hearing on July 15, 1969, the plaintiff with his attorney, Mr. … The decree entered pursuant to the proceeding was stipulated, and as said in Twitchell v.

Amos v. SAIF Corp.

72 Or. App. 145 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 6, 1985

OEC 311(l)(v); see ORS 109.070(2). This presumption may be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence of impotency or nonaccess. Burke v. … See Burke v. Burke, supra, 216 Or at 697 ; In re Rowe’s Estate, supra, 172 Or at 304 . 3 He considered as evidence only the divorce decree and the income tax returns.

Freres Lumber Co. v. Murphy

101 Or. App. 92 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 28, 1990

The Board set aside employer’s denial in its entirety. … ORS 656.245(1); Wetzel v. Goodwin Brothers, 50 Or App 101, 108 , 622 P2d 750 (1981). However, in James v. Kemper Ins.

Lakin v. Senco Products, Inc.

144 Or. App. 52 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 9, 1996

Viewed most favorably to plaintiffs, Brown v. J. C. … nail into the board.

St. Clair v. Clark

40 Or. App. 809 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 25, 1979

Petitioner then met with Lee Brown, the Director of the Justice Services Department of Multnomah County. Brown had not been briefed on the matter and so did nothing but listen to petitioner. … Fairview Hospital, 276 Or 657 , 556 P2d 1340 (1976) (Tupper II), reversing 22 Or App 523, 540 P2d 401 (1975) (Tupper I), and Hammer v.

SAIF Corp. v. Scott

111 Or. App. 99 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 22, 1992

Dethlefs v. Hyster Co., 295 Or 298, 307 , 667 P2d 487 (1983). … Dethlefs v. Hyster Co., supra, 295 Or at 310 ; Clark v. Erdman Meat Packing, 88 Or App 1, 5 , 744 P2d 255 (1987), rev den 305 Or 102 (1988).

Western Land & Cattle, Inc. v. Umatilla County

230 Or. App. 202 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 5, 2009

ORS 197.829(1); Church v. Grant County, 187 Or App 518 , 69 P3d 759 (2003). … Ramirez v. Hawaii T & S Enterprises, Inc., 179 Or App 416, 425 , 39 P3d 931 (2002).

Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Smith

117 Or. App. 224 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 16, 1992

Barr v. EBI Companies, 88 Or App 132, 134 , 744 P2d 582 (1987). However, it argues that claimant did not file a claim on which the Board could find that there was a de facto denial. … Employer’s principal complaint is that the Board’s holding is not supported by substantial evidence. In particular, employer challenges the Board’s reliance on the opinion of Dr.

Bedell v. Schiedler

93 Or. App. 214 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 28, 1988

Scott v. Cupp, 55 Or App 23 , 637 P2d 173 (1981). Affirmed. … See Penrod/Brown v. Cupp, 283 Or 21 , 581 P2d 934 (1978).

Liacos v. SAIF Corp.

96 Or. App. 737 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 24, 1989

Petitioner argues that the Board erred by including the part of the settlement allocable to those persons in the third party distribution computation. After the Board issued its order, we decided Scarino v. … The Board must reconsider the order in the light of Scarino. Reversed and remanded for reconsideration.