Case law

Denny v. Crane

129 Or. App. 283 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 27, 1994

Claimant challenges the Board’s determination on the compensability of his current condition on three grounds. First, relying on Georgia-Pacific v. … In Albany General Hospital v.

Roseburg Forest Products v. Long

325 Or. 305 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 22, 1997

The Board agreed with the administrative law judge’s findings of fact and wrote: “See [Beneficiaries of Strametz v. … In Boise Cascade Corp. v.

Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Kepford

100 Or. App. 410 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 14, 1990

In January, 1986, we held that the occupational disease claim was compensable and remanded the claim to the Board for a determination of the extent of disability. Kepford v. … In Cutright v.

Chapman v. Employment Division

32 Or. App. 127 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 16, 1978

The Employment Appeals Board reviews decisions of the referee de novo on the record and can enter its own order. Stevenson v. Morgan, 17 Or App 428 , 522 *131 P2d 1204 (1974). … Our review in this case is limited to a search for substantial evidence and rational reasoning. 2 McCann v. OLCC, 27 Or App 487 , 556 P2d 973 (1976), rev den (1977).

Grignon v. Shope

100 Or. 611 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 19, 1921

Notes); Day v. Cole, 56 Mich. 294, 296 ( 22 N. W. 811 ); Campbell v. Brown, 64 Iowa, 425, 426 ( 20 N. W. 745 , 52 Am. Rep. 446 ); McCully v. Cooper, 114 Cal. 258, 262 ( 46 Pac. 82 , 55 Am. St. Rep. 66 , 35 L. R. … J., and Johns and Brown, JJ., concur.

Robinson v. Nabisco, Inc.

331 Or. 178 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 28, 2000

The Workers’ Compensation Board (Board) upheld employer’s denial of compensation, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Robinson v. Nabisco, Inc., 143 Or App 59 , 923 P2d 668 (1996). … Krushwitz v.

K-Mart Corp. v. Claussing

162 Or. App. 558 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 15, 1999

See generally Clausing v. K-Mart Corporation, 144 Or App 552 , 926 P2d 337 (1996). … Corp. v. Hegerberg, 118 Or App 282, 286 , 846 P2d 1216 (1993); Nelander v. Dept. of Ins. and Finance, 112 Or App 419, 422 , 829 P2d 1048 (1992); Wood v. Dunn, 109 Or App 204, 211 , 818 P2d 979 (1991).

Earle v. McCarthy

28 Or. App. 539 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 14, 1977

See Green v. Hayward, 275 Or 693 , 552 P2d 815 (1976). … We find that there was substantial evidence in the record to support each of these findings, Dickinson v.

Stueve v. Everett

11 Or. App. 18 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 25, 1972

Winslow v. … However, in City of Portland v.

Windmill Inns of America, Inc. v. Cauvin

299 Or. App. 567 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 2, 2019

See Brown v. Guard Publishing Co., 267 Or App 552, 562, 341 P3d 145 (2014) (explaining that the court does not apply de novo review in the context of a motion for summary judgment) * * *.” … V.

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Porter

283 Or. 517 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 26, 1978

The Trial Board recommended that the accused be administered a public reprimand. … Thus, as stated in Kelly v.

State of Oregon v. Buck

200 Or. 87 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 21, 1953

In State v. … Board of Medical Examiners v. Eisen, 61 Or 492 , 123 P 52 .

Matter of Compensation of Barrett

60 Or. App. 483 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 1, 1982

Fundamental fairness dictates that the board should not decide a claim on the basis of evidence not in the record or on issues not briefed before it. Neely v. … The board’s de novo review is on the record submitted before it, as is ours. Neely v. SAIF, supra. We have not yet ruled on the retroactive effect, if any, of ORS 656.273.

Portland Canning Co. v. State Tax Commission

241 Or. 109 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1965

Neither the taxpayer nor the Washington County Assessor appealed the board’s decision. … Mallatt v. Luihn, 206 Or 678, 692 , 294 P2d 871 (1956). With this ruling this court agrees. The parties have disagreed as to which valuation the presumption of validity attends upon trial.

Bayer v. Goldschmidt

17 Or. App. 334 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 6, 1974

No claim is made that the Board acted erroneously, i.e., made procedural errors, or exceeded its jurisdiction. See Baker v. Steele et al, 229 Or 498, *336 501 , 366 P2d 726 (1961); Bechtold et al. v. … Evans v. Schrunk, supra.

Fuls v. SAIF Corp.

321 Or. 151 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 25, 1995

The Court of Appeals *154 affirmed an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board (Board) denying compensability. Fuls v. SAIF, 129 Or App 255 , 879 P2d 869 (1994). For the reasons that follow, we affirm. … See, e.g., James v.

McGill v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp.

91 Or. App. 228 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 18, 1988

On September 10,1986, we reversed the Board’s decision on the claim for widow’s benefits and remanded the case to the Board with instructions to accept the claim. McGill v. … In Culwell, we held that “forthwith” means within 30 days after the date when the Board issues its order. 65 Or App at 335 ; see Ingram v. AMFAC, Inc., 73 Or App 197, 199 , 698 P2d 493 (1985).

Matter of Marriage of Rogers

45 Or. App. 885 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 14, 1980

In Kruger v. … See In re Marriage of Adams, supra; In re Marriage of Brown, 15 Cal 3d 838, 544 P2d 561 , 126 Cal Rptr 633 (1976); Bensing v. Bensing, 25 Cal App 3d 889, 102 Cal Rptr 255 (1972).

Winters v. Woodburn Carcraft Co.

142 Or. App. 182 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 10, 1996

In Westfall v. … Somers v. SAIF, 77 Or App 259, 263 , 712 P2d 179 (1986).

State Accident Insurance Fund Corp. v. McCabe

74 Or. App. 195 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 3, 1985

done by the executive board. … Weller v. Union Carbide, 288 Or 27 , 602 P2d 259 (1979). Additionally, he must establish that the work conditions were the major contributing cause of the worsening of the preexisting condition. Dethlefs v.