Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Yankee v. Oregon Medical Board

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided August 3, 2016No. 110207, 110264, 110410, 110575; A153254Published

1ConcurrenceEgan, P. J.

I agree that petitioner should be granted a hearing for the reasons stated by the majority. I write separately because I would also conclude that the Oregon Medical Board (the board) incorrectly construed OAR 137-003-0670(2) when it denied petitioner a hearing.

In interpreting a rule, “our task is to ascertain the intent of the body that promulgated it.” Perlenfein and Perlenfein, 316 Or 16, 20, 848 P2d 604 (1993). To ascertain that intent, we “look to the text of the rule, in the context of other portions of the rule and related laws,” and may consider the rule’s history, to the extent the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. In the Matter of Marriage of Perlenfein and PerlenfeinOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Lederer v. Viking Freight, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2004
  3. Lederer v. Viking Freight, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2004
  4. Phillips v. Department of Public Safety Standards & TrainingCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2015

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

Powered by the Exa API