Legal Opinion

K-MART v. Evenson

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided May 3, 2000No. 97-07020; CA A103326PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtEdmonds, P. J.

Employer seeks judicial review of the Workers’ Compensation Board’s order that determined that claimant’s claim is compensable. Employer’s sole contention is that the Board misunderstood and misapplied the statutory definition of the term “compensable injury.” ORS 656.005(7)(a). We therefore review for errors of law, ORS 656.298(7), ORS 183.482(8), and affirm.

The facts are not disputed. At the hearing, employer and claimant stipulated to many of the pertinent facts, and employer does not argue that any of the Board’s findings are not supported by substantial evidence. We take the following…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & IndustriesOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Brown v. SAIF Corp.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1986
  3. Finch v. Stayton Canning Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1988
  4. Barkley v. Corrections DivisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992
  5. Johnsen v. Hamilton ElectricCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1988

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. De Los-Santos v. Si Pac Enterprises, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2016
  2. Dynea USA, Inc. v. FairbanksCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2011
  3. Horizon Air Industries, Inc. v. Davis-WarrenCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2014
  4. SAIF Corp. v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2001
  5. Guill v. M. Squared Transportation, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2016

2 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