Case law

Aagesen v. SAIF Corp.

126 Or. App. 120 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 26, 1994

See Gardner v. Meiling, 280 Or 665, 674 , 572 P2d 1012 (1977); Rushlight Co. v. City of Portland, 189 Or 194 , 219 P2d 732 (1950). … The Board’s findings are supported by substantial evidence, and the evidence supports the Board’s conclusion.

Leppanen v. Lane Transit District

181 Or. App. 136 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 1, 2002

In State v. … State v.

Williams v. State Accident Insurance Fund

20 Or. App. 208 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 27, 1975

The referee, the Workmen’s Compensation Board and the circuit court judge each disagreed with her. In numerous opinions, we have discussed that doctrine and see no need to restate its principles here. House v. … SAIF, 20 Or App 150 , 530 P2d 872 (1975); Deaton v. SAIF, 13 Or App 298 , 509 P2d 1215 (1973); Swanson v. Westport Lumber Co., 4 Or App 417 , 479 P2d 1005 (1971); Newlin v.

Sigler v. A & B Automotive

128 Or. App. 692 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 29, 1994

The Board’s determination that she failed to prove entitlement to an award of impairment is supported by substantial evidence. Claimant concedes that our recent decision in Hathaway v. … ORS 656.283(7); Scheller v. Holly House, 125 Or App 454, 457 , 865 P2d 475 (1993), rev den 319 Or 36 (1994); Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Smith, 122 Or App 160, 163 , 857 P2d 187 (1993).

Allen v. Paula Insurance

182 Or. App. 259 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 19, 2002

The board upheld the denial. … See also Kempf v.

Bergun v. Employment Division

81 Or. App. 580 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 15, 1986

Babcock v. Employment Division, 72 Or App 486, 488 , 696 P2d 19 (1985). 2 Employer argues that the *584 vacation shutdown in June, 1983, is evidence of its “policy established by prior experience.” … The standard articulated in Babcock v. Employment Division, supra, and predecessor cases is known as the “any evidence” standard.

Kephart v. Green River Lumber

118 Or. App. 76 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 3, 1993

Under our decision in Wood v. … In Hicks v.

State v. Kephart

249 Or. App. 360 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 18, 2012

Citing State v. … Otherwise the board shall deny the relief sought in the petition.”

Davis v. NYE DITCH USERS IMP. DIST.

247 Or. App. 266 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 14, 2011

See, e.g., City of Keizer v. … See also Miller v.

Smith v. Brooks-Scanlon, Inc.

54 Or. App. 730 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 16, 1981

In Butcher v. … In Morris v.

Summit v. Weyerhaeuser Company

25 Or. App. 851 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 28, 1976

After hearing, the referee allowed the claim and the Workmen’s Compensation Board affirmed. … The Board agreed with the referee.

Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council v. Albert

260 Or. App. 640 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 23, 2014

See generally Trujillo v. Pacific Safety Supply, 336 Or 349 , 353 n 2, 84 P3d 119 (2004) (explaining calculation of work disability). … In doing so, “[w]e review the board’s decision for substantial evidence and errors of law, and to determine whether the board’s analysis comports with substantial reason.” SAIF v.

State v. McGilchrist

57 Or. App. 86 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 26, 1982

Neither party addressed this question either in the trial court or here, and we do not consider the question whether the exception to ORS 131.515(2) survives Brown v. Multnomah County Dist. … Ct., 280 Or 95 , 570 P2d 52 (1977), or passes muster under State v. Brown, 262 Or 442 , 497 P2d 1191 (1972).

Williams v. West Coast Grocery

146 Or. App. 553 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 5, 1997

On review, the Board reversed. … have applied the “material contributing cause” 2 standard because his current condition was caused directly, although belatedly, by his on-the-job injury, see Albany General Hospital v. *557 Gasperino, 113 Or App 411 , 833

State v. Hamilton

186 Or. App. 729 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 13, 2003

In interpreting a statute, we follow the analysis set forth in PGE v. … State v. Andrews, 174 Or App 354, 358 , 27 P3d 137 (2001). 3 Both parties refer to two cases that have previously interpreted this statute. State v.

Piburn v. SAIF Corp.

199 Or. App. 494 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 11, 2005

See also Landsem Farms, LP v. … Because the board misinterpreted the rules governing claimant’s situation, we remand. SAIF v. Walker, 145 Or App 294, 305 , 930 P2d 230 (1996), aff'd, 330 Or 102 , 996 P2d 979 (2000).

Ross v. Springfield School District No. 19

71 Or. App. 111 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 21, 1984

The Fair Dismissal Appeals Board found the charge of inefficiency unfounded but upheld the dismissal based on gross unfitness and immorality. We affirmed. Ross v. Springfield School Dist. … Springfield Education Assn. v. School Dist., supra, 290 Or at 224 .

Sieczkowski v. Lane County

264 Or. App. 246 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 9, 2014

Brown v. SAIF, 262 Or App 640 , 325 P3d 834 (2014).

Liberty Northwest Insurance v. Ausbie

107 Or. App. 762 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 19, 1991

We reversed the Board’s order in Donna E. Aschbacher, supra, Aetna Casualty Co. v. … Accordingly, the Board must reconsider its decision in the light of our opinion. Reversed and remanded for reconsideration in the light of Aetna Casualty Co. v. Aschbacher, supra.

Seiders v. Hefner

89 Or. App. 55 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 23, 1987

Brown v. J. C. Penney Co., 297 Or 695, 705 , 688 P2d 811 *61 (1984) . … Brown v. J. C. Penney Co., supra. Defendant argues that Hefner’s conduct was not within the scope of any actual or apparent authority from the company when he borrowed money from plaintiff.