Legal Opinion

O'NEAL v. Tewell

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided April 21, 1993No. 91-12978; CA A76809PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRossman, P. J.

Claimant seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board, contending that the Board erred in failing to assess a penalty under ORS 656.262(10) for SAIF’s delay in the payment of compensation for temporary disability, and attorney fees under either ORS 656.386(1) or ORS 656.386(2).

The parties have stipulated to the material facts. On July 19,1991, claimant left work due to a compensable injury. Her employer was non-complying and, on August 21, 1991, the Compliance Division referred the case to SAIF for processing. At that time, the Compliance Division’s investigation had revealed…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Shoulders v. SAIF Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1986
  2. Spivey v. SAIF Corp.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1986

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. SAIF Corp. v. AllenCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1993
  2. Bailey v. Boeing Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1996
  3. SAIF Corp. v. AllenCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1993
  4. Saif Corp. v. O'nealCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1995

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

Powered by the Exa API