Case law

Hamilton v. SAIF Corp.

256 Or. App. 256 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 17, 2013

We then followed Livesley in McAdams v. … See Damis v.

BASIN TIRE SERVICE, INC. v. Minyard

240 Or. App. 715 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 16, 2011

Corp., Inc. v. Watkins, 347 Or 687, 690-91 , 227 P3d 1134 (2010). … See, e.g., Robinson v.

Rosboro Lumber Co. v. Heine

289 Or. 909 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 28, 1980

In Russell v. … Hood Stages v. Haley, 253 Or 28, 37-39 , 445 P2d 878 , 453 P2d 435 (1969), and State ex rel Ricco v.

Mendiola v. Graham

139 Or. 592 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 16, 1932

J. 888, § 4; McKelvey v. U. S., supra; State v. Horn, 27 Idaho 782 ( 152 P. 275 ). … Buford v. Houtz, supra; Light v. U. S., supra.

State v. Woodward

1 Or. App. 338 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 18, 1969

State v. … Lyons, 247 Or 255 , 428 P2d 890 (1967); State v. Poole, 161 Or 481 , 90 P2d 472 (1939). The exhibit here is duly certified by the Secretary of the Oregon State Board of Health. In Finchum v.

State v. Fuerte-Coria

196 Or. App. 170 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 10, 2004

State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355 , 800 P2d 259 (1990). Here, the alleged unpreserved error is not reviewable under ORAP 5.45(1) because the legal point is not “obvious”; indeed it is “reasonably in dispute.” Id. … Brown, 310 Or at 355 . Accord State v.

State Accident Insurance Fund Corp. v. Culwell

65 Or. App. 332 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 9, 1983

Gevurtz v. Myers, 10 Or App 491, 493 , 500 P2d 730 (1972). Further, a statute should be construed, if possible, to avoid an absurd or unreasonable result. Rogue Valley Memorial Hosp. v. … We hold, therefore, that disputes over attorney fees awarded by the Board must be filed in the circuit court pursuant to ORS 656.388(2) forthwith, but in no event later than 30 days after the date of the Board’s order on

Basmaci v. the Stanley Works

177 Or. App. 102 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 3, 2001

Employer requested Board review. The Board reinstated employer’s denial of the low-back strain. The Board also reversed the AU’s award of interim compensation and penalties. … Botefur v. City of Creswell, 84 Or App 627, 630 , 735 P2d 20 (1987). In fact, a claimant may be entitled to interim compensation even though there is no entitlement to temporary disability. Jones v.

Francis v. Schuman

74 Or. 454 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 26, 1915

any way binding upon the board or *456 other state officers. … Crowell, 33 Or. 11, 13 ( 52 Pac. 693 ); Moores v. Moores, 36 Or. 261, 264 ( 59 Pac. 327 ); State ex rel. v. Grand Jury, 37 Or. 542, 543 ( 62 Pac. 208 ); Oregon Electric Ry. Co. v.

SAIF Corp. v. Paxton

154 Or. App. 259 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 10, 1998

Boise Cascade Corp. v. Starbuck, 296 Or 238 [, 243, 675 P2d 1044 ] (1984).” … See FMC Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Ins.

Johnson v. Dave's Auto Center, Inc.

257 Or. 34 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 5, 1970

Conversely, if the Board had denied his claim on the basis that he was not an employee, plaintiff would then have been entitled to file this action against these defendants. Bandy v. … Conder v.

Crocker v. Weil

227 Or. 260 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 17, 1961

In Crawford v. … De Monbrun v. Sheet Metal Workers, International Ass'n., 140 Cal App2d 546, 295 P2d 881 (1956); O'Neill v. United Plumbers, Etc., 348 Pa 531, 36 A2d 325 (1944); Schrank v. Brown, *296 192 Misc 80 , 80 NYS2d 452 (1948).

Stephenson v. Meyer

150 Or. App. 300 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 1, 1997

Unless specifically authorized by statute, the Board has no authority to award attorney fees, even though an inequity could result. Forney v. … See SAIF v. Allen, 320 Or 192, 201 , 881 P2d 773 (1994) (The term “claimant” in * * * ORS 656.386(1) indicates that a “claim” is a prerequisite to the recovery of a fee award.); Safeway Stores, Inc. v.

Messmer v. Deluxe Cabinet Works

130 Or. App. 254 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 14, 1994

Drews v. EBI Companies, supra, 310 Or at 149 ; Hammon Stage Line v. Stinson, 123 Or App 418, 422 , 859 P2d 1180 (1993). There is no argument in this case that the determination order is not final. … The Board erred in concluding that employer is not required to treat the degenerative condition, which has now worsened, as part of the compensable claim. Therefore, we remand to the Board for reconsideration.

DeHart v. Thompson

143 Or. App. 485 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 11, 1996

Ball v. Halton Co.

167 Or. App. 468 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 24, 2000

See Hewlett Packard Co. v. Leonard, 151 Or App 307 , 948 P2d 1256 (1997); Schuening v. J. R. Simplot & Company, 84 Or App 622, 625 , 735 P2d 1 , rev den 303 Or 590 (1987). … We conclude that the Board properly declined to consider claimant’s argument, because it was not raised at the hearing. Fister v. Smith Hills Health Care, 149 Or App 214 , 942 P2d 833 (1997). Affirmed.

Sinclair v. Champion International Corp.

117 Or. App. 515 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 30, 1992

SAIF v. Stephen, supra, 308 Or at 48 . The Board determined that, even though it would have been futile for claimant to seek work, he failed to prove that he was willing to work. … The Board’s finding is supported by substantial evidence. See SAIF v. Stephen, supra. Affirmed.

Billings v. Crouse

17 Or. App. 586 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 11, 1974

If he has, the rejection “acts as an appeal to the medical board of review,” former ORS 656.808 ② ; Ware v. … Beaudry v. Winchester Plywood Co., 255 Or 503, 510 , 469 P2d 25 (1970), the Workmen’s Compensation Board should have convened a medical board of review for the purpose of reviewing the hearing officer’s findings.

Lewis v. Cigna Insurance

174 Or. App. 531 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 6, 2001

Claimant seeks review of the part of a Workers’ Compensation Board (Board) order affirming denial of his claim due to his noncooperation with the insurer, Cigna. … In denying that motion, the Board relied on its decision in SAIF v. Dubose, 50 Van Natta 1631, on recons 50 Van *536 Natta 1822 (1998). Sometime after the Board’s denial, however, we reversed that decision. SAIF v.

Nix v. State Accident Insurance Fund

80 Or. App. 656 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 13, 1986

Relying on Bono v. … In Jones v.