Legal Opinion

DiBrito v. SAIF Corp.

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided June 23, 1994No. WCB 92-13969; CA A78740; SC S40909PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGraber, J.

In this case we are called on to apply provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law relating to types of claims for compensation. Claimant was a caseworker for Adult and Family Services. She suffered from preexisting colitis and a preexisting personality disorder. Because of health problems, claimant sought to reduce her daily work hours by half and to take the remaining half as leave without pay. Claimant became upset during a meeting with her supervisor on May 14, 1991, during which she was informed that she would not be able to retain her status as a full-time employee if her request to…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Mathel v. Josephine CountyOregon Supreme Court · 1994
  2. SAIF Corp. v. HukariCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Fuls v. SAIF Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Smirnoff v. SAIF Corp.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2003
  3. SAIF Corp. v. FalconerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1998
  4. Fuls v. SAIF Corp.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1994
  5. In Re Compensation of PruittCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2008

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API