Geer v. SAIF Corp.
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1Opinion of the CourtLeeson, J.
Claimant petitions for review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board. We affirm.
The Board characterized the procedural history of this case as “confusing.” The essential facts are: On May 13, 1992, the referee issued an order affirming in part, and setting aside in part, SAIF’s denial of claimant’s claims for a lower back injury, and ordering SAIF to pay an assessed attorney fee. On June 11, 1992, the referee signed an order granting claimant’s request that the May 13 order be abated. The abatement order was not mailed until June 15, 1992.
SAIF petitioned the Board for review. The…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State v. CumminsCourt of Appeals of Utah · 1992
- Lyday v. Liberty Northwest InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992