12 Oregon opinions name it 1 courts 1997–2023 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oregon courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Taylor v. SAIFgreen2 sentences2023The majority then concludes that, because the board is given responsibility to review decisions of an ALJ under ORS 656.295(6), the board should be able to award attorney fees in a claimant’s appeal about noth- ing but fees in a case that previously involved a rescinded denial. 329 Or App at 139-40 . 2023The majority then concludes that, because the board is given responsibility to review decisions of an ALJ under ORS 656.295(6), the board should be able to award attorney fees in a claimant’s appeal about noth- ing but fees in a case that previously involved a rescinded denial. 329 Or App at 139-40 . | 1 | 2 |
Rogue Valley Medical Center v. McClearengreen2 sentences2000See ORS 656.283(7) (1965, 1979, 1981, 1985, 1987, 1990); see generally Rogue Valley Medical Center v. McClearen, 152 Or App 239, 244-46 , 952 P2d 1048 , rev den *183 327 Or 123 (1998) (discussing significance of 1995 amendment to statute). 2000See ORS 656.283(7) (1965, 1979, 1981, 1985, 1987, 1990); see generally Rogue Valley Medical Center v. McClearen, 152 Or App 239, 244-46 , 952 P2d 1048 , rev den *183 327 Or 123 (1998) (discussing significance of 1995 amendment to statute). | 1 | 2 |
Oregon Occupational Safety & Health Division v. CBI Services, Inc.green2 sentences2018The Supreme Court made clear that it was error for the first ALJ to evaluate OR-OSHA's case without adequately assessing "reasonable diligence." CBI Services, Inc. , 356 Or. at 599 , 341 P.3d 701 (explaining that the "ALJ's order in this case lacks any explanation supporting a determination as to employer's reasonable diligence," and accordingly remanding to the board for further proceedings); see also CBI Services, Inc. , 254 Or.App. at 479 , 295 P.3d 660 (reversing and remanding because *839 "the ALJ's inquiry in this case was critically shortsighted" because it did not correctly determine " 2018The Supreme Court made clear that it was error for the first ALJ to evaluate OR-OSHA's case without adequately assessing "reasonable diligence." CBI Services, Inc. , 356 Or. at 599 , 341 P.3d 701 (explaining that the "ALJ's order in this case lacks any explanation supporting a determination as to employer's reasonable diligence," and accordingly remanding to the board for further proceedings); see also CBI Services, Inc. , 254 Or.App. at 479 , 295 P.3d 660 (reversing and remanding because *839 "the ALJ's inquiry in this case was critically shortsighted" because it did not correctly determine " | 1 | 1 |
Drew v. Psychiatric Security Review Boardgreen2 sentences2013See Drew v. PSRB, 322 Or 491, 500 , 909 P2d 1211 (1996) (explaining that an agency must set out the reasoning that leads it from the facts that it has found to the conclusions that it draws from those facts). 2013See Drew v. PSRB, 322 Or 491, 500 , 909 P2d 1211 (1996) (explaining that an agency must set out the reasoning that leads it from the facts that it has found to the conclusions that it draws from those facts). | 1 | 1 |
Sound Elevator v. Zwingrafgreen1 sentence2002Again, this case differs from Sound Elevator , where we held that the unmentioned injury was put at issue by the denial, without any separate “new condition” claim, because the employer knew of the unmentioned injury when it issued its general denial. 181 Or App at 152, 155 . | 1 | 1 |
Richardson v. Peralesgreen2 sentences1999But because the statute was not in effect when reconsideration commenced, we do not resolve this case on the narrow ground that claimant was obligated to present the proffered evidence in documentary form at reconsideration before he may, through live testimony or otherwise, insist on presenting it at the ALJ hearing. [8] By way of illustration, the record before DCBS in this case contained nearly 13 years' worth of medical, vocational, and psychiatric assessments relating to claimant's disability. [9] The Court concluded: "[T]he decision whether to discontinue disability benefits will turn, i 1999But because the statute was not in effect when reconsideration commenced, we do not resolve this case on the narrow ground that claimant was obligated to present the proffered evidence in documentary form at reconsideration before he may, through live testimony or otherwise, insist on presenting it at the ALJ hearing. [8] By way of illustration, the record before DCBS in this case contained nearly 13 years' worth of medical, vocational, and psychiatric assessments relating to claimant's disability. [9] The Court concluded: "[T]he decision whether to discontinue disability benefits will turn, i | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Koskela v. Willamette Industries, Inc.
green
2 sentences2002Rather, as we explained, “the 1995 amendments to ORS 656.283(7) [which the claimant challenged] took effect *117 after claimant requested reconsideration and the reconsideration process had commenced.” Koskela, 159 Or App at 241 n 7. 3 We reasoned: “[B]ecause the [1995 amendments to the] statute w[ere] not in effect when reconsideration commenced, we do not resolve this case on the narrow ground that claimant was obligated to present the proffered evidence in documentary form at reconsideration before he may, through live testimony or otherwise, insist on presenting it at the ALJ hearing.” Id. 2002Rather, as we explained, “the 1995 amendments to ORS 656.283(7) [which the claimant challenged] took effect *117 after claimant requested reconsideration and the reconsideration process had commenced.” Koskela, 159 Or App at 241 n 7. 3 We reasoned: “[B]ecause the [1995 amendments to the] statute w[ere] not in effect when reconsideration commenced, we do not resolve this case on the narrow ground that claimant was obligated to present the proffered evidence in documentary form at reconsideration before he may, through live testimony or otherwise, insist on presenting it at the ALJ hearing.” Id. | 2 | 2001–2002 |
Coleman v. SAIF
green
2 sentences2020Cite as 304 Or App 122 (2020) 143 letter to the ALJ did not constitute a clear request for formal written acceptance, as required by ORS 656.267(1) (requir- ing claimant to request written acceptance to initiate an omitted medical condition claim under ORS 656.262(6)(d)). 2020Cite as 304 Or App 122 (2020) 143 letter to the ALJ did not constitute a clear request for formal written acceptance, as required by ORS 656.267(1) (requir- ing claimant to request written acceptance to initiate an omitted medical condition claim under ORS 656.262(6)(d)). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Oregon Occupational Safety & Health Division v. CBI Services, Inc.
green
2 sentences2018The Supreme Court made clear that it was error for the first ALJ to evaluate OR-OSHA's case without adequately assessing "reasonable diligence." CBI Services, Inc. , 356 Or. at 599 , 341 P.3d 701 (explaining that the "ALJ's order in this case lacks any explanation supporting a determination as to employer's reasonable diligence," and accordingly remanding to the board for further proceedings); see also CBI Services, Inc. , 254 Or.App. at 479 , 295 P.3d 660 (reversing and remanding because *839 "the ALJ's inquiry in this case was critically shortsighted" because it did not correctly determine " 2018The Supreme Court made clear that it was error for the first ALJ to evaluate OR-OSHA's case without adequately assessing "reasonable diligence." CBI Services, Inc. , 356 Or. at 599 , 341 P.3d 701 (explaining that the "ALJ's order in this case lacks any explanation supporting a determination as to employer's reasonable diligence," and accordingly remanding to the board for further proceedings); see also CBI Services, Inc. , 254 Or.App. at 479 , 295 P.3d 660 (reversing and remanding because *839 "the ALJ's inquiry in this case was critically shortsighted" because it did not correctly determine " | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Grobovsky v. Board of Medical Examiners
green
2 sentences2014Rather, according to the agency, this case is closer to Grobovsky v. Board of Medical Examiners, 213 Or App 136 , 159 P3d 1245 (2007), in which the operative statute authorized the Board of Medical Examiners to suspend the petitioner’s medical license, although the petitioner had allowed the license to expire. 2014Rather, according to the agency, this case is closer to Grobovsky v. Board of Medical Examiners, 213 Or App 136 , 159 P3d 1245 (2007), in which the operative statute authorized the Board of Medical Examiners to suspend the petitioner’s medical license, although the petitioner had allowed the license to expire. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Carr v. U S West Direct Co.
green
2 sentences1997Nonetheless, relying on Carr v. US West, 98 Or App 30 , 779 P2d 154 , rev den 308 Or 608 (1989), the ALJ held that the claim was not compensable because claimant’s injuries did not “arise out of claimant’s employment.” The Board affirmed that denial, supplementing the ALJ’s order with two specific additional holdings, both based on Carr. 1997Nonetheless, relying on Carr v. US West, 98 Or App 30 , 779 P2d 154 , rev den 308 Or 608 (1989), the ALJ held that the claim was not compensable because claimant’s injuries did not “arise out of claimant’s employment.” The Board affirmed that denial, supplementing the ALJ’s order with two specific additional holdings, both based on Carr. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.