Legal Opinion

Scheidemantel v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided June 27, 1984No. 81-00719; CA A28809PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtVan Hoomissen, J.

Claimant appeals from an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board. She contends that the Board erred in affirming SAIF’s termination of her temporary total disability payments and in denying her aggravation claim. On de novo review, we affirm the denial of the aggravation claim. We reverse and remand to the Board to determine when temporary total disability payments should have ceased and whether a penalty and attorney fee should be awarded. ORS 656.298(6).

Claimant sustained a compensable back injury in 1979. She was treated for a dorsolumbar strain and was determined to be medically…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Kemp v. Workers' Compensation DepartmentCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1983
  2. Kemp v. Workers' Compensation DepartmentCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1984
  3. Sheffield v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1981

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Consolidated Freightways v. FousheeCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1986
  2. Scheidemantel v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1984
  3. Smith v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1986
  4. Volk v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1985

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API