Case law

Roseburg Forest Products v. Hardenbrook-Hardy

216 Or. App. 112 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 7, 2007

Roseburg appealed to the board. On appeal, the board, with one member dissenting, affirmed. Roseburg then filed this petition for judicial review. … Thomas Creek Lumber v. Board of Forestry, 188 Or App 10, 22 , 69 P3d 1238 (2003). See also PGE v.

Rocky B. Fisheries, Inc. v. North Bend Fabrication & MacHine, Inc.

66 Or. App. 625 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 25, 1984

Quoted in Larson v. … In Straube v.

Westfall v. Tilley

4 Or. App. 9 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 16, 1970

On appeal therefrom the circuit court affirmed the order of the board. Claimant appeals. … The board concluded that the work of Tilley Farm Service was an activity incidental to farming and that Glen Tilley, the employer, was therefore engaged “in only one occupation”— farming. Babb v.

Weiland v. SAIF Corp.

64 Or. App. 810 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 5, 1983

He further appeals the Board’s affirmance of the referee’s holding that he had not timely filed his claim against Linn County. … Abbott v. SAIF, 45 Or App 657 , 609 P2d 396 (1980); Hamlin v. Roseburg Lumber, 30 Or App 615 , 567 P2d 612 (1977).

State v. Massey

160 Or. App. 197 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 28, 1999

State v. Meyrick, 313 Or 125, 133 , 831 P2d 666 (1992). The court permitted defendant’s attorney to withdraw on the day of trial. … See, e.g., State v.

Pickell v. Oregon Mutual Insurance

109 Or. App. 439 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 30, 1991

In Oregon Insurance Guaranty Assoc. v. … In Aetna Life and Casualty v.

Miville v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp.

76 Or. App. 603 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 4, 1985

The Board found, and SAIF agrees, that the out-of-state injuries contributed independently to the present worsened condition, thereby relieving SAIF of liability. Smith v. … That policy is distinct from the rule of Smith v.

Davis v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp.

63 Or. App. 245 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 11, 1983

Claimant appeals the Workers’ Compensation Board’s order reinstating and affirming SAIF’s denial of the claim. The Board reversed the referee’s order that SAIF accept the claim as nondisabling. … See Hannan v. Good Samaritan Hosp., 4 Or App 178 , 471 P2d 831 , 487 P2d 931 (1970), rev den (1971).

State Accident Insurance Fund Corp. v. Maddox

60 Or. App. 507 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 8, 1982

February 19, 1980: Court of Appeals affirms (without opinion) the Board’s order in compensability case. Maddox v. SAIF, 44 Or App 520 , 605 P2d 1391 (1980). … March 9, 1981: Court of Appeals remands compensability case to Board. Maddox v. SAIF, 51 Or App 2 , 624 P2d 643 (1981). December 7, 1981: Board on remand holds claim not compensable.

U. S. National Bank v. Wagoner

71 Or. App. 266 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 5, 1984

The Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, and employer appeals. We affirm. In Frasure v. … After the denial of the claim in this case, but before the Board’s decision, the Supreme Court held in Bauman v.

Giesbrecht v. State Accident Insurance Fund

58 Or. App. 218 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 14, 1982

Claimant appeals from a determination by the Workers’ Compensation Board that his multiple sclerosis disease was not aggravated by excessive heat in his work environment. … Abbott v. SAIF, 45 Or App 657, 661 , 609 P2d 396 (1980).

Schoch v. Leupold

144 Or. App. 259 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 30, 1996

We review the Board’s award of attorney fees for an abuse of discretion, Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Fillmore, 98 Or App 567 , 779 P2d 1102 (1989), and vacate the award and remand for reconsideration. … The rule does not specify how the Board must consider the factors or even require the Board to make findings regarding the factors, Diamond Fruit Growers v.

Graham v. Liberty Nw. Ins. Corp. (In re Graham)

293 Or. App. 529 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 29, 2018

We review the board's order for substantial evidence and errors of law, ORS 183.482(8)(a), (c), conclude that the board did not err, and affirm. … As the Supreme Court said in SAIF v.

Wells v. Pete Walker's Auto Body

86 Or. App. 739 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 5, 1987

The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the referee’s determination that the offset was proper. We affirm. In Edwards v. … The Board has construed “wage earnings” as used in *743 the rules to include unemployment benefits. 3 That interpretation is consistent with applicable law and the legislative policy.

Kanna v. State Accident Insurance Fund

19 Or. App. 594 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 25, 1974

The Workmen’s Compensation Board on July 19, and the circuit court on August 3, 1973, also affirmed. There was no further appeal. … Dinnocenzo v. SAIF, 18 Or App 63 , 523 P2d 1280 (1974); McKinney v. G. L. Pine, Inc., 16 Or App 619 , 519 P2d 1265 (1974).

Carling v. SAIF Corp.

119 Or. App. 466 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 21, 1993

The Board said: “It is well settled that the employer is hable for the natural consequences flowing from a compensable injury. Williams v. Gates McDonald & Co., 300 Or 278, 281 [, 709 P2d 712 ] (1985); Pattitucci v. … Grace v. SAIF, 76 Or App 511, 517 , 709 P2d 1146 (1985). We addressed a similar problem in Magana v.

Gevers v. Roadrunner Construction

156 Or. App. 168 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 30, 1998

Corp. v. Jensen, 150 Or App 548, 552 , 946 P2d 689 (1997). Our first level of inquiry into the meaning of statutes and rules is examination of text and context. PGE v. … Id.; see also Shubert v. Blue Chips, 151 Or App 710, 714 , 951 P2d 172 (1997); Simon v. PIE Nationwide, Inc., 142 Or App *175 411, 416 , 921 P2d 421 (1996).

Agripac, Inc. v. Kitchel

73 Or. App. 132 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 10, 1985

In SAIF v. … We now overrule the holding in Bond on the basis of the Supreme Court’s decision in SAIF v. Curry, 297 Or 504 , 686 P2d 363 (1984).

Moore v. Coos County

144 Or. App. 195 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 23, 1996

stable, where they board and pasture horses and provide for recreational riding. … The latter language was added to ORS 215.203(2)(a) by 1993 and 1995 amendments that were apparently designed to legislatively modify or overrule the Supreme Court’s decision in Capsey v.

Hoag v. Duraflake Co.

37 Or. App. 103 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 6, 1978

Although we disagree with the Workers’ Compensation Board’s determination, exposition of the facts would not in any way aid the Board or the bar in analyzing future cases. Accordingly, as we explained in Bowman v.