Case law

Nomeland v. City of Portland

106 Or. App. 77 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 20, 1991

Bracke v. Baza’r, Inc., supra. … See Barrett v. D &H Drywall, supra; Weller v. Union Carbide, 288 Or 27 , 602 P2d 259 (1979).

Smith v. State Ex Rel. Department of Human Resources

31 Or. App. 15 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 4, 1977

Assn v. Sch. … Thompson v. IDS Life Ins. Co., 274 Or 649 , 549 P2d 510 (1976); State *[20] v. Pearson, 250 Or 54 , 440 P2d 229 (1968); see School Dist. No. 48 v. Fair Dis. App. Bd., 14 Or App 35 , 512 P2d 799 (1973).

Gwin v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp.

105 Or. App. 171 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 16, 1991

SAIF v. Reel, supra, 303 Or at 216 . … SAIF v. Reel, supra, 303 Or at 216 .

Mentor Graphics Corp. v. Velazquez

248 Or. App. 102 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 8, 2012

Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Warren, 103 Or App 275, 278 , 796 P2d 1246 (1990), rev den, 311 Or 60 (1991) (citing Weller v. Union Carbide Corp., 288 Or 27, 33 , 602 P2d 259 (1979)). … If the board did draw that inference, it needs to say so, and it needs to explain how Graham’s report supports that inference. See City of Roseburg v.

Whitney v. Employment Division

28 Or. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 10, 1977

On May 19, 1976, ERB adopted the findings of the Board Agent. … Oregon State Grange v. McKay, 193 Or 627 , 238 P2d 778 (1951), 239 P2d 834 (1952). Appeal dismissed.

SM Motor Co. v. Mather

117 Or. App. 176 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 16, 1992

Gerber v. State Ind. Acc. Com., 164 Or 353 , 101 P2d 416 (1940). … Lough v. State Industrial Acc. Com., 104 Or 313 , 207 P 354 (1922). Neither the Board nor the courts may waive these requirements. Johnson v. Compensation Department, 246 Or 449 , 425 P2d 496 (1967); Rosell v.

Rogue River Education Ass'n/Southern Oregon Bargaining Council/OEA/NEA v. Rogue River School District No. 35

244 Or. App. 181 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 13, 2011

Gladhart v. … In NLRB v.

United Airlines v. Anderson

207 Or. App. 493 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 30, 2006

The Workers’ Compensation Board (board) ordered employer to calculate claimant’s TTD using the retroactive wage rate. … On review to the board, the board affirmed that portion of the AL J’s order. Relying on Springer v.

Drews v. EBI Companies

96 Or. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 5, 1989

EBI argues, citing Dean v. Exotic Veneers, Inc., 271 Or 188 , 531 P2d 266 (1975), and Million v. … We conclude that claimant is not barred from raising the issue that he does, and the Board erred.

State v. Douglas

5 Or. App. 175 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 5, 1971

State v. Brown, 1 Or App 322 , 461 P2d 836 (1969), Sup Ct review denied (1970). The question is close, but the facts we have related demonstrate that the trial judge drew reasonable inferences. … We have considered the case in the light of Ball v. Gladden, 250 Or 485 , 443 P2d 621 (1968); and Frye v. Gladden, 1 Or App 629 , 465 P2d 716 (1970), as well as State v. Williams, 248 Or 85 , 432 P2d 679 (1967).

Morgan v. Beaver Heat Treating Corp.

44 Or. App. 209 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 28, 1980

In Beaudry v. … In Weller v.

Place v. Friesen Lumber Co.

2 Or. App. 6 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 15, 1970

Such judicial review of orders of the Workmen’s Compensation Board is provided for in ORS 656.298 which, in part, reads as follows': “(1) Any party affected by an order of the board may, within the time limit specified in … This motion was granted and a judgment of dismissal was entered.- The sole question raised in this appeal from the judgment of dismissal is identical to. the principal question- in- the recent case of Cunningham v.

Everett v. SAIF Corp.

179 Or. App. 112 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 23, 2002

The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that claimant could not offer that evidence. … He also argues that the Board erred in not allowing him to testify at the hearing regarding his job duties. Relying on Koskela v.

Knupp v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp.

79 Or. App. 273 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 14, 1986

The scope of review of an order was considered by this court in Mansfield v. Caplener Bros., 3 Or App 448 , 474 P2d 785 (1970). … This case does not have any bearing on our consideration of evidence improperly excluded by the referee or Board. Relying on Stone v.

Phillips v. Liberty Mutual

67 Or. App. 692 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 11, 1984

As we stated in Butcher v. … As the Board also stated, if the evidence affirmatively establishes that a claimant is not capable of performing the job, ORS 656.206(3) is not pertinent. We find that, contrary to the circumstances in Shaw v.

Thomas v. Cascade Union High School District No. 5

80 Or. App. 736 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 20, 1986

Ross v. Springfield School Dist. No. 19 (Ross I), 294 Or 357 , 657 P2d 188 (1982). … Ross v. Springfield School Dist. No. 19 (Ross II), 300 Or 507, 518 , 716 P2d 724 (1986).

Widener v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp.

40 Or. App. 3 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 7, 1979

On review, the Workers’ Compensation Board (Board) affirmed in all respects. … The referee, the Board and the circuit court all agreed that he did prove a compensable injury.

SAIF Corp. v. Bales

107 Or. App. 198 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 15, 1991

Springfield Education Assn. v. School Dist., 290 Or 217 , 621 P2d 547 (1980). … See, e.g., Johnson v. City of Roseburg, 86 Or App 344 , 739 P2d 602 (1982).

Ceco Corp. v. Bailey

71 Or. App. 782 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 23, 1985

On appeal, Ceco argues that the Board misapplied Boise Cascade Corp. v. Starbuck, 296 Or 238 , 675 P2d 1044 (1984). … We agree with the Board.

Donald M. Drake Co. v. Lundmark

63 Or. App. 261 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 25, 1983

The Board disagreed. It found that “* * * under the standards of James v. SAIF, 290 Or 343, 348 (1980), claimant has an occupational disease. … (Emphasis is the Board’s.) In James v. SAIF, 290 Or 343 , 624 P2d 565 (1980), the Supreme Court approved the distinction made between “injury” and “disease” in O’Neal v.