Legal Opinion

Mercer Industries v. Rose

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided August 8, 1990No. 88-16120, 88-03158; CA A51112PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtEdmonds, J.

Petitioner moves for reconsideration of our opinion in Mercer Industries v. Rose, 100 Or App 252, 785 P2d 385 (1990). We held that the Board erred when it refused to award attorney fees to claimant after claimant actively litigated the issue of responsibility. Petitioner argues that claimant is not entitled to an employer-paid attorney fee, because his right to compensation was never in jeopardy.

Claimant’s entitlement to receive compensation was resolved before the hearing when an order of responsibility under former ORS 656.307, 1 was issued. ORS 656.386(1) provides, in pertinent part:

“In…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Shoulders v. SAIF Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1986
  2. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp. v. PhippsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1987
  3. Mercer Industries v. RoseCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1990

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Multnomah County School District v. TignerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992
  2. Farmers Insurance Group v. HuffCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1997
  3. Gamble v. Nelson InternationalCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1993

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

Powered by the Exa API