Case law

Babb v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp.

49 Or. App. 707 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 8, 1980

The Supreme Court has answered that question in the negative in Frasure v. Agripac, 41 Or 7 , 596 P2d 1015 (1980). … See Funke v. SAIF, 49 Or App 279 , 619 P2d 668 (1980).

Linn-Benton-Lincoln Education Ass'n/OEA/NEA v. Linn-Benton-Lincoln ESD

163 Or. App. 558 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 27, 1999

ERB explained its decision on reconsideration as follows: “[The union] rightly points out that this Board, in Mid-Valley Bargaining Council [v. Greater Albany School Dist., Case No. … This makes it increasingly difficult to support the Employment Relations Board’s conclusion [in Welches Education Association/OEA/NEA v.

State v. Brooks

285 Or. App. 54 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 26, 2017

See State v. … (Quoting Brown, 310 Or at 355 .) We agree with the state.

Erickson v. State Accident Insurance Fund

47 Or. App. 1033 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 25, 1980

PER CURIAM This is an appeal by the State Accident Insurance Fund from an order by the Workers’ Compensation Board remanding claimant’s claim to the Fund for acceptance and payment of compensation. … The Board reversed the order of the referee. We reverse the order of the Board and reinstate the order of the referee. Moore v. U S. Plywood Corp., 1 Or App 343 , 462 P2d 453 (1969). Reversed.

Bogle v. Department of General Services

136 Or. App. 351 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 10, 1955

We affirm the Board, but write to address claimant’s contention that the Board erroneously discounted the opinion of his treating physician. … In Elwood v.

Goodman-Herron v. SAIF Corp.

151 Or. App. 602 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 17, 1997

Livesly Co. v. Russ, 296 Or 25 , 672 P2d 337 (1983)] and [Fred Meyer, Inc. v. Hayes, 325 Or 592 , 943 P2d 197 (1997).]” Redman, 326 Or at 36 . … We reverse the Board’s order and remand to the Board for reconsideration in the light of Redman.

Burge v. SAIF Corp.

108 Or. App. 145 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 3, 1991

Even if decedent was a traveling employee, see SAIF v. … See SAIF v. Barajas, 107 Or App 73 , 810 P2d 1316 (1991). As in SAIF v.

Krugen v. BEALL PIPE AND TANK CORPORATION

19 Or. App. 922 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 23, 1974

By Determination Order of November 6, 1970, the Closing & Evaluation Division of the Workmen’s Compensation Board found him to be permanently totally disabled. … “The employer then pointed to the lack of such efforts and argued, relying on Deaton v.

Suchi v. SAIF Corp.

238 Or. App. 48 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 20, 2010

The Workers’ Compensation Board agreed. … State v.

Newport Seafood v. Shine

71 Or. App. 119 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 21, 1984

The Board reversed a referee’s decision that Intercontinental Motor Lines (IML) was claimant’s employer at the time of the injury. Responsibility is the sole issue. We affirm the Board. … In Multnomah County v.

Kaplowitz v. Lane County

285 Or. App. 764 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 1, 2017

[v. … Furthermore, as we discussed in Gould v.

Schultz v. Springfield Forest Products

151 Or. App. 727 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 24, 1997

See Hadley v. … Shubert v.

Anderson v. EBI Companies

79 Or. App. 345 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 14, 1986

J., Pro Tempore Claimant seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board (Board) affirming a referee’s opinion and order that held time-barred his request for hearing on a denial of benefits and, he argues, effectively … Poole v. SAIF, supra, 69 Or App at 508 . Affirmed.

Cole v. Ford Motor Co.

136 Or. App. 45 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 2, 1995

Defendants rely on Griffin v. K.E. … Brown v. J. C. Penney Co., 297 Or 695, 705 , 688 P2d 811 (1984) (citing Or Const, Art VII (amended), § 3).

Wittmeyer v. Children's Services Division

16 Or. App. 124 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 24, 1973

The Board decided against her on the merits. We affirm the Board on procedural grounds. The performance evaluation in question was furnished to petitioner on April 2,1972. … If the employe and his supervisor cannot reach agreement as to the solution of the problem, he may present his problem in writing as a ■ grievance to the appropriate level of this pro- . cedure. *127 * * * # V’ Collective

SAIF Corp. v. Hanscam

246 Or. App. 355 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 2, 2011

The ALJ *359 agreed with SAIF and reinstated the notice of closure, determining that, under Reynoldson v. … The ALJ and the board upheld the notice of closure. 189 Or App at 329 . On the claimant’s petition for judicial review, we reversed the board. We explained, quoting from Papen v.

Ohlig v. FMC Marine & Rail Equipment Division

47 Or. App. 363 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 21, 1980

Claimant appeals from an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board which upheld a denial of his claim for a herniated spinal disc. … Smith v. Amalgamated Sugar Company, 25 Or App 243 , 548 P2d 1329 (1976). Neither is claimant entitled to recover attorneys’ fees. Vandehey v. Pumilite Glass and Building Co., supra; Smith v.

Nyre v. F & R Leasing

106 Or. App. 74 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 20, 1991

Gettman v. SAIF, 289 Or 609, 614 , 616 P2d 473 (1980). A claimant is entitled to benefits only for disability caused by the injury. Subsequent, noncompensable conditions are not considered. Emmons v. … See Elder v. Rosboro Lumber, 106 Or App 16 , 806 P2d 692 (1991); Emmons v. SAIF, supra. Affirmed.

Knapp v. Employment Division

67 Or. App. 231 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 7, 1984

Petitioner seeks review of an Employment Appeals Board order denying her request for a base year extension. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. A hearing on petitioner’s claim was held on December 26,1981. … Co. v. Conn Organ, 40 Or App 785, 791 , 596 P2d 605 , rev den 287 Or 507 (1979). A party to an agency proceeding is entitled to judicial review of a final agency order. ORS 183.480.

Blivens v. Employment Division

55 Or. App. 665 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 25, 1982

In Swezey v. … We remanded the matter because, when Swezey was decided by the Board, the Division was under the false impression that this issue had been decided by the Supreme Court in McPherson v.