Case law

Kuske v. Employment Division

64 Or. App. 695 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 28, 1983

The Board adopted and affirmed the referee’s decision without opinion. In this context, we review for errors of law; we do not weigh the evidence. See Sothras v. Employment Division, 48 Or App 69 , 616 P2d 524 (1980). … The Board’s conclusion to the contrary was error. See Sothras v. Employment Division, supra. Reversed and remanded.

Sound Elevator v. Zwingraf

181 Or. App. 150 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 1, 2002

Employer seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board (board) setting aside a denial of claimant’s claim for a knee injury. We affirm. Claimant injured his right knee at work. … Citing Tattoo v.

Matter of Grandy

50 Or. App. 239 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 3, 1981

See State v. O’Neill, 274 Or 59 , 545 P2d 97 (1976); State ex rel Vandenberg v. … Johnson v. Wilson, 276 Or 69 , 554 P2d 157 (1976); McCormick, Evidence 796 § 340, (2d ed E. Cleary) (1972).

Wheeler v. Boise Cascade

66 Or. App. 620 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 17, 1984

However, in Hutcheson v. … The referee thought Hutcheson controlling, as did the Board dissenter. The Board majority thought Weller controls.

Powell v. Wilson

10 Or. App. 613 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 28, 1972

We treat the defendant Board’s motion to strike the entire complaint as a demurrer for purposes of this decision. In Amer. Timber/Bernard v. … In Holmes v. State Ind. Acc.

Matter of Compensation of Langston

56 Or. App. 709 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 5, 1982

Both the referee and the Workers’ Compensation Board (Board) held that it is not. Claimant appeals. We affirm. Claimant was employed by K-Mart when she suffered a job-related injury in 1979. … Claimant also assigns error to the Board’s failure to award her penalties and attorney’s fees.

Haynes v. Weyerhaeuser Co.

75 Or. App. 262 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 18, 1985

The Board affirmed the referee’s determination that jurisdiction over such disputes is vested in the Director of the Workers’ Compensation Department. We agree and affirm. … Claimant cites SAIF v. Belcher, 71 Or App 502 , 692 P2d 711 (1984), as authority for his position that claimant’s interest in the medical fee dispute brings the dispute within the Hearings Division’s jurisdiction.

Stone v. Whittier Wood Products

116 Or. App. 427 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 18, 1992

'The referee determined that, under Safeway Stores v. Owsley, 91 Or App 475 , 756 P2d 48 (1988), claimant was not entitled to TPD after her termination. The Board adopted the referee’s order on review. … Safeway Stores v. Owsley, supra. If claimant is correct that her termination was in violation of ORS 659.425, she may be entitled to remedies that are available under that statutory scheme. See Welch v.

Eber v. Royal Globe Insurance

54 Or. App. 940 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 1, 1981

Claimant appeals from a determination by the Workers’ Compensation Board (Board), contending that the Board erred in (1) affirming the referee’s denial of compensability for a condition of the left knee, and (2) reversing … See Wood v. SAIF, 30 Or App 1103, 1108 , 569 P2d 648 (1977), rev den 282 Or 189 (1978).

Miller v. Grants Pass Irrigation District

62 Or. App. 747 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 27, 1983

No decision was made by the board of the irrigation district to take any action, although the minutes show that the board was aware of the situation. … Stevenson v.

Clark v. U. S. Plywood

38 Or. App. 381 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 6, 1979

The Workers’ Compensation Board (Board) disagreed and granted benefits to the employee’s beneficiaries. The deceased employee (Clark) worked in a plywood manufacturing plant on the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift. … See Benadel v. SAIF, 33 Or App 597 , 577 P2d 99 (1978); Olsen v. SAIF, 29 Or App 235 , 562 P2d 1234 , rev den (1977); Casper v. SAIF, 13 Or App 464 , 511 P2d 451 (1973); Jordan v.

Stapleton v. Liberty Northwest Insurance

175 Or. App. 618 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 8, 2001

The Board concluded that there were no objective findings contained in the report. … Consequently, we reverse and remand for the Board to consider whether the chart note’s range of motion measurements constitute objective findings and, if they do not, to explain why not. See Iles v.

Wilson v. Roseburg Forest Products

113 Or. App. 670 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 1, 1992

She cites Van Horn v. Jerry Jerzel, Inc., 66 Or App 457 , 674 P2d 617 , rev den 297 Or 82 (1984), for that proposition. At issue in that case was a penalty for failure to pay interim compensation. … Co. v.

State v. Custer

126 Or. App. 431 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 23, 1994

In State v. … See State v. Brown, supra, 301 Or at 279 . The trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress the pistol.

Bowlin v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp.

81 Or. App. 527 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 15, 1986

From the nature of the referee’s order, we assume that he believed the four witnesses’ testimony, see Hedlund v. … Neither the parties nor the Board cited any authority construing the term “cohabitation” under the statute, and we have not found any. In Wadsworth v.

Pre-Hospital Medical Services, Inc. v. Malheur County

134 Or. App. 481 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 24, 1995

See Anderson; see also Megdal v. Board of Dental Examiners, 288 Or 293 , 605 P2d 273 (1980). … Mitchell v.

Anfora v. Liberty Communications

88 Or. App. 30 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 21, 1987

Shoulders v. SAIF, supra, 300 Or at 611 . … See Stovall v. Sally Salmon Seafood, 84 Or App 612, 615 , 735 P2d 18 , rev allowed 304 Or 240 (1987); Nat. Farm Ins. v. Scofield, 56 Or App 130 , 641 P2d 1131 (1982); Hanna v. McGrew Bros.

Cunningham v. State Compensation Department

1 Or. App. 127 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 17, 1969

Defendant calls to our attention Mack Trucks, Inc. v. … Marshall, 237 Or 589 , 392 P2d 768 (1964); Anderson, Adm. v. Clough et al, 191 Or 292 , 230 P2d 204 (1951); Reed v. Hunter, 150 Or 524 , 46 P2d 595 (1935); Liimatainen v. State Industrial Acc.

Elliott v. Loveness Lumber Co.

61 Or. App. 269 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 12, 1983

By concerning itself with the fact that the new rule was not yet in effect, the Board erroneously concluded that there was no duty on EBI that would bring the penalty statute into play. In Silsby v. … See Moore v. Commodore Corp., 55 Or App 480 , 638 P2d 491 (1982). That there was a question as to which of two insurers was responsible for the claim does not excuse EBI.

SAIF Corp. v. ILIAIFAR

217 Or. App. 104 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 19, 2007

We conclude that the board correctly interpreted the rule, and we affirm. The following facts were found by the board and are supported by substantial evidence. ORS 656.298(7); ORS 183.482(8)(c); Worldmark The Club v. … We review the board’s interpretation of the administrative rule for errors of law. SAIF v. Donahue-Birran, 195 Or App 173, 175 , 96 P3d 1282 (2004).