Legal Opinion

Oliver v. Scamps Pet Center

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided February 23, 1994No. 91-07680; CA A77617Published

1Per curiam

Claimant petitions for review of our opinion. 124 Or App 663, 862 P2d 1327 (1993). We treat the petition as one for reconsideration. Former ORAP 9.15(1); ORAP 1.10. We grant the motion in order to address claimant’s contention that our opinion is “fatally flawed,” because we stated that the Board found that “the October claim was based on a new, separate exposure to psittacosis, and that that infection was not a continuation of the disease contracted in February.” 124 Or App at 666. She contends that the Board did not make those findings.

Claimant is mistaken. Even if her contention was…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Oliver v. Scamps Pet CenterCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1993

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

Powered by the Exa API