Legal Opinion

McAdams v. Saif Corp.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided January 11, 1984No. 81-03758; CA A25709PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtButtler, P. J.

Claimant appeals from a Workers’ Compensation Board order denying compensation for injuries he received as a result of a fall at work. The issue is whether claimant’s fall was “unexplained” in the sense that the reason for falling is unknown, or whether his fall was “idiopathic,” that is, the reason is known but is personal to claimant rather than work-related. As the Supreme Court pointed out in Phil A. Livesley Co. v. Russ, 296 Or 25, 672 P2d 337 (1983), if a claimant’s fall is unexplained, it is compensable, but if it is idiopathic, it is not.1 The Board held that claimant’s fall was…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Phil A. Livesley Co. v. RussOregon Supreme Court · 1983
  2. MacKay v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1982
  3. Matter of Compensation of RussCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1983

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. McTaggart v. Time Warner CableCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2000
  2. Marshall v. Bob Kimmel TruckingCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991
  3. Hamilton v. SAIF Corp.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2013
  4. Damis v. Cotter & Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1988
  5. Guill v. M. Squared Transportation, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2016

3 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