Legal Opinion

Matter of Compensation of Cowart

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided December 7, 1988No. WCB 84-02070; CA A47227PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWarren, J.

Claimant seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board on our remand. In Cowart v. SAIF, 86 Or App 748, 740 P2d 249 (1987), we remanded the case to the Board for a determination of whether claimant’s failure to request a hearing was due to good cause, ORS 656.319(1)(b), under the standard applicable to relief from default judgments under ORCP 71B(1).

In his second and third assignments of error, claimant contends that he need not have sought a hearing within the time required by ORS 656.319, because SAIF’s partial denial was void, either because it was an improper back-up denial…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1988
  2. Bauman v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1983
  3. Roller v. Weyerhaeuser Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1984
  4. Roller v. Weyerhaeuser Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1984
  5. Cowart v. SAIF Corp.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1987

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Freres Lumber Co. v. JegglieCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991
  2. Giusti Wine Co. v. AdamsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1990
  3. Haskell Corp. v. FilippiCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1998
  4. Giusti Wine Co. v. AdamsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1990
  5. Haskell Corp. v. FilippiCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1998

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

Powered by the Exa API