Case law

Liberty Northwest Insurance v. Miller

93 Or. App. 38 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 7, 1988

Boise Cascade Corp. v. Starbuck, 296 Or 238, 244 , 675 P2d 1044 (1984); Hensel Phelps Const. v. Mirich, 81 Or App 290, 294 , 724 P2d 919 (1986). … That being so, the order is deficient, because we are not free to supply necessary conclusions that the Board has failed to make. Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co., 90 Or App 200 , 752 P2d 312 (1988).

Petersen v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp.

52 Or. App. 731 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 15, 1981

Claimant appeals from an order by the Workers’ Compensation Board (Board) reducing an award of permanent total disability made by the referee to 50 percent permanent partial disability for low back injuries. … Wilson v. Weyerhaeuser, 30 Or App 403, 409 , 567 P2d 567 (1977). It *735 would be "futile for claimant to attempt to be employed.” Morris v. Denny’s, 50 Or App 533, 538 , 623 P2d 1118 (1981).

Yekel v. SAIF Corp.

286 Or. App. 837 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 19, 2017

Brown v. SAIF, 361 Or 241 , 391 P3d 773 (2017); McDermott v. SAIF, 286 Or App 406 , 398 P3d 964 (2017).

Or. Shores Conservation Coal. v. Bd. of Commissioners of Clatsop Cnty.

297 Or. App. 269 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 24, 2019

Friends of Yamhill County v. Board of Commissioners , 351 Or. 219 , 228, 264 P.3d 1265 (2011) ( Friends II ). … Oregon Shores v. Board of County Commissioners , 249 Or. App. 531 , 536, 277 P.3d 639 (2012).

Baxter v. Monmouth City Council

51 Or. App. 853 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 27, 1981

See, e.g., In re Willow Creek, 74 Or 592 , 144 P 505 , 146 P 475 (1915); Evanhoff v. State Industrial Acc. Com., 78 Or 503 , 154 P 106 (1915); Mallatt v. Luihn et al, 206 Or 678 , 294 P2d 871 (1956); Mazama Tim. v. … See Mallatt v. Luihn et al, supra; Mazama Tim. v. Lane Air Poll. Auth., supra; cf., Evanhoff v. State Industrial Acc. Com., supra.

Taylor v. Liberty Northwest Insurance

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

See ORS 656.298(6); ORS 183.482(8)(b)(B); Mershon v. Oregonian Publishing, 96 Or App 223, 226 , 772 P2d 440 , rev den 308 Or 315 (1989). … We affirm the Board’s decision, because its interpretation of former OAR 436-60-150(3) is consistent with both the wording of the rule and ORS 656.289. Mershon v. Oregonian Publishing, supra, 96 Or App at 226 .

Boyce v. Sambo's Restaurants, Inc.

39 Or. App. 615 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 23, 1979

The employer relies on Zandbergen v. … on the Board.

Throop v. State Accident Insurance Fund

19 Or. App. 668 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 9, 1974

appeal by the State Accident Insurance Fund from an order of the circuit court requiring it to accept a claim for aggravation of the claimant’s temporary total disability, reversing the orders of the Workmen’s Compensation Board … Therefore, the claim for aggravation was properly denied, the order of the circuit court is reversed and the order of the Board is reinstated.

Juniper Institue, LLC v. Deschutes County

341 Or. App. 674 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 9, 2025

Siporen v. City of Medford, 349 Or 247, 262, 243 P3d 776 682 Juniper Institue, LLC v. Deschutes County (2010). … See Carroll v.

Stone Forest Industries, Inc. v. Bowler

147 Or. App. 81 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 19, 1997

Thus, in United Steelworkers v. … In Washington v.

Guerra v. Transport Indemnity Co.

30 Or. App. 415 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 8, 1977

In this workers’ compensation case, the Workers’ Compensation Board determined that the claimant had suffered 160 degrees or 50 percent of total disability. … The medical diagnosis of back sprain and osteoarthritis are not of sufficient severity to justify the degree of pain of which claimant complains and, unlike Elliott v.

Tamargo v. Employment Department

266 Or. App. 214 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 8, 2014

PER CURIAM Claimant seeks review of an order of the Employment Appeals Board (board) disqualifying him from receiving unemployment benefits. 1 He asserts, in part, that the board erred in concluding that he was discharged … ORS 183.482(8)(c); Campbell v.

State v. Couraud

118 Or. App. 550 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 17, 1993

In State v. Brown, 115 Or App 327, 329 , 838 P2d 624 (1992), we concluded that the legislature intended that amendment to apply retroactively to any misdemeanor committed on or after November 1, 1989. … Nevertheless, because the issue was not preserved, we did not decide in that case whether retroactive application of ORS 137.540(2) would violate the ex post facto clause of the Oregon Constitution. 1 In State v.

Bales v. SAIF Corp.

57 Or. App. 621 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 9, 1982

Olson v. State Ind. Acc. Com., 222 Or 407, 415-16, 352 P2d 1096 (1960); Batdorf v. SAIF, 54 Or App 496, 502 , 635 P2d 396 (1981). … In Clayton v.

Peerless Pacific Co. v. Employment Division

27 Or. App. 909 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 27, 1976

As we have previously said, we cannot disturb a reasonable conclusion drawn from the facts by the Board even though, were we sitting as triers of fact, we might well reach a different conclusion. Grigsby v. … See Fajardo v. Morgan, 15 Or App 454 , 516 P2d 495 (1973). Affirmed.

LaDelle v. Life Care Center

102 Or. App. 50 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 6, 1990

Retroactive application of a rule is not always *53 improper. 1 In Amfac, Inc. v. … In the light of our decision in Amfac, Inc. v. Garcia-Maciel, supra, the time limits cannot be applied retroactively.

State v. Harvey

35 Or. App. 719 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 8, 1978

State v. Bussey, 34 Or App 535, 537-538 , 579 P2d 264 (1978). Our cases such as State v. Dinkel, 34 Or App 375 , 579 P2d 245 (1978), State v. Wilson, 35 Or App 181 , 581 P2d 106 (1978), and State v. … of the restitution was suspended until his release from imprisonment, the board shall establish a schedule by which payment of the restitution may be resumed.”

Ritz v. State Accident Insurance Fund

27 Or. App. 725 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 13, 1976

The Fund concedes the partial disability to the leg and prays that the order of the Board be reinstated. Claimant, when injured, was a 44-year-old timber faller and bucker. … The claimant has the burden of proving that the industrial injury to one part of the body is also the cause of the disabling condition of other parts of the body, Fisher v.

Davis v. State Accident Insurance Fund

15 Or. App. 405 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 26, 1973

As stated in Fenn v. … Respondent relies, as did the circuit court, on Binet v. Ocean Gate Board of Education, 90 NJ Super 571, 218 A2d 869 (1966); Dawson v. Oklahoma City Casket Company, 322 P2d 642 (Okla 1958); and Cav *408 ness v.

SAIF Corp. v. VanLanen

127 Or. App. 735 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 4, 1994

SAIF did not seek review of the determination order. 1 The Board issued an order affirming the referee’s compensability order. SAIF began paying the “retroactive” TTD 35 days after the Board order. … Because SAIF paid the retroactive TTD within the 14 days permitted by the rule, the Board erred in concluding that the payment was untimely. Reversed as to assessment of penalty. In SAIF v.