Case law

Howard v. Liberty Northwest Insurance

94 Or. App. 283 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 7, 1988

The threshold question is whether the Board has jurisdiction to enforce the agreement. In EBI Companies v. … We conclude, however, that the Board has jurisdiction to enforce such agreements.

Hood River County School District v. Fogle

30 Or. App. 699 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 22, 1977

These requirements are jurisdictional and failure to satisfy them precludes the Fair Dismissal Appeals Board’s consideration of a dismissal appeal. See, Williams v. … Williams v. Cody, 24 Or App at 436 . Respondent’s notice of appeal was received on the same day that she received notice of her dismissal.

Hays v. Tillamook County General Hospital

160 Or. App. 55 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 21, 1999

The Board concluded that it should, reasoning: “This case is distinguishable from Fister [v. South Hills Health Care, 149 Or App 214 , 942 P2d 833 (1997)]. … See ORS 656.298(7) (making ORS 183.482(7) and (8) applicable to judicial review of Board orders); Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co., 90 Or App 200 , 752 P2d 312 (1988) (same).

Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. v. Koitzsch

155 Or. App. 494 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 26, 1998

In Volk v. … In Dean v. SAIF, 72 Or App 16 , 695 P2d 90 , rev den 298 Or 822 (1985), and Lindamood v.

Ernst v. United States

293 F. Supp. 3d 1242 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 13, 2017

See Hart v. … When the potential lender asked about collateral, the defendant explained where Brown would get the money to repay the loan and also stated that Brown and the lender could go to San Francisco to get cocaine as a "further

Bennett v. Oregon State Bar

256 Or. 37 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1970

More recently in Warren v. … We interpret Lathrop v.

Cruz-Salazar v. SAIF

317 Or. App. 342 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 2, 2022

Held: The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the board for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Caren v. … Robinette v.

Howerton v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp.

70 Or. App. 99 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 26, 1984

Claimant first argues that the Board’s guidelines are invalid, because they arbitrarily assign positive and negative points for each factor. 2 We disagree. See Fraijo v. Fred N. … See Fraijo v. Fred N. Bay News Co., supra, 59 Or App at 269 ; accord Harwell v. Argonaut Ins. Co., 296 Or 505, 510 , 678 P2d 1202 (1984).

Agripac, Inc. v. Beem

130 Or. App. 170 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 7, 1994

Koitzsch v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp., 125 Or App 666 , 866 P2d 514 (1994). We conclude, however, that the Board’s error, if any, in admitting other medical evidence is harmless. … The Board chose not to accept Feinberg’s opinion, which was the only opinion indicating that claimant had permanent impairment. It can do that. Libbett v. Roseburg Forest Products, 130 Or App 50 , 880 P2d 935 (1994).

Carlson v. Pryor

262 Or. 131 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 17, 1972

Reeves et ux v. Dickenson et ux, 208 Or 360 , 300 P2d 458 (1956); In re Wakefield’s Estate, 161 Or 330 , 87 P2d 794 , 89 P2d 592 (1939). … By the original estimate, plaintiffs would receive over 62,000 board feet. They received only 7,000 board feet. Mr.

Odoms v. Oregon State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 24, 2021

OREGON STATE BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST PRISON SUPERVISION, Respondent. … See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.

Kociemba v. SAIF Corp.

63 Or. App. 557 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 22, 1983

would not be entitled to an award of permanent total disability, because his refusal to undergo recommended medical treatment (amputation of his left leg) was unreasonable. 1 See Clemons v. … The Board stated that, given the history of claimant’s difficulties with his leg, “amputation does not appear an ‘extreme’ medical alternative.” In Clemons v.

Nelson v. EBI Companies

296 Or. 246 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 10, 1984

The Court of Appeals affirmed the holding of the Board. Nelson v. EBI Companies, 64 Or App 16 , 666 P2d 1360 (1983). … Brecht v. SAIF, 12 Or App 615 (1973); Wilson v. Gilchrist Lumber Co., 6 Or App 104 (1971).”

SAIF Corporation v. Wheeler

107 Or. App. 254 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 22, 1991

We have interpreted ORS 656.278(1), as it now reads, to abolish the Board’s authority to award permanent disability benefits on its own motion. See State ex rel Borisoff v. Workers’ Comp. … Board, 104 Or App 603, 606 , 802 P2d 98 (1990); Independent Paper Stock v. Wincer, 100 Or App 625, 628 , 788 P2d 466 , rev den 310 Or 195 (1990).

Mathews v. City of La Grande

136 Or. 426 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 5, 1931

the injury: Village of Shelby v. … Rep. 799 ); Shannon v. Tacoma, 41 Wash. 220 ( 83 P. 186 ); Fisher v. Anacortes, 109 Wash. 191 ( 186 P. 271 ).

Sekermestrovich v. State Accident Insurance Fund

28 Or. App. 901 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 28, 1977

Brooks v. Employment Division, 24 Or App 547, 550 , 546 P2d 760 (1976). In this context, the discretion of the Workmen’s Compensation Board is equally broad. … We therefore hold that, at least absent additional factors affecting claimant’s capacity to conduct her own affairs, the Board was justified in refusing to find good cause. See Fulop v. Oregonian Pub.

Trevitts v. Hoffman-Marmolejo

138 Or. App. 455 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 3, 1996

The Board approved the CDA on May 21,1991. … Timberline Equipment v. St. Paul Fire & Mar. Ins., 281 Or 639, 643 , 576 P2d 1244 (1978); Slocum v. Lang, 132 Or App 571, 576 , 889 P2d 379 (1995).

O'LEARY v. Valley View Cutting

107 Or. App. 103 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 15, 1991

The Board concluded that former OAR 438-07-015(2) does not apply until a claimant files a request for a hearing. Chapter 438 contains the Board’s rules of practice and procedure for contested cases. … We defer to the Board’s interpretation of its own rules, so long as the interpretation is not inconsistent with the rules and the statutes. Mershon v.

Dean v. SAIF Corp.

72 Or. App. 16 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 6, 1985

Price v. SAIF, supra, 296 Or at 316 . … See Winters et al v. Grimes et al, 124 Or 214 , 264 P 359 (1928); Jones v. SAIF, supra; Mendenhall v. SAIF, 16 Or App 136 , 517 P2d 706 , rev den (1974); Hammond v.

O'BRIEN v. United States

166 F. Supp. 231 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 30, 1958

In Brown v. Harrison, plaintiff was injured when traveling on the highway from Knowle to Warwick, England, when a chestnut tree in an obvious state of decay, 18 feet from the highway, broke. In Hay v. … Because of its reliance on actual notice, the Ohio court does not adhere to the rule laid down in either Brandywine Hundred Realty Co. v. Cotillo or Brown v.