Legal Opinion

Freightliner Corp. v. Arnold

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided July 3, 1996No. 93-04313; CA A86953PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLandau, J.

Employer seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board (Board) holding that claimant’s workers’ compensation claim is compensable. We affirm.

The Board found the following facts. Claimant worked for employer, a truck cab manufacturer, as a painter’s helper. His job required regular use of sprayed acid primer and other organic compounds that are capable of causing respiratory irritation. Claimant and other workers did not regularly use respiratory protective equipment while spraying primers in the open work area, which had fresh air ventilation. Claimant’s job also required him to…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Norpac Foods, Inc. v. GilmoreOregon Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Mellis v. McEWEN, HANNA, GISVOLD, RANKIN & VAN KOTEN, EMPLOYERS, AND MISSION INS. CO.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1985
  3. First Interstate Bank v. ClarkCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1995
  4. McClendon v. Nabisco Brands, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1986

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Columbia Forest Products v. WoolnerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2001
  2. SAIF Corp. v. StrubelCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1999
  3. Wise v. Brooks Construction ServicesSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2006
  4. Worldmark the Club v. TravisCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1999
  5. SAIf Corp. v. AltonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2000

7 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