Legal Opinion

Mize v. Comcast Corp-AT & T Broadband

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided October 11, 2006No. 04-05568; A128708PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*565EDMONDS, J.

The threshold issue in this case concerns the meaning of the phrase “in material part” in ORS 656.245(l)(a).1 Claimant seeks judicial review after the Workers’ Compensation Board (board) ruled that he had failed to meet his burden to show that his compensable injury was a material cause of his current need for treatment. In reaching its decision, the board reasoned that the word “material” in the above phrase required claimant to prove that his need for medical services resulted from something more than a “minor contribution” to his current condition by his compensable injury. We…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & IndustriesOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Coday v. WILLAMETTE TUG & BARGE COMPANYOregon Supreme Court · 1968
  3. State v. JohanesenOregon Supreme Court · 1994
  4. Oregon Racing Commission v. Multnomah Kennel ClubOregon Supreme Court · 1966
  5. Van Blokland v. OR. HEALTH SCIENCES UNIVERSITYCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1987

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. SAIF Corp. v. SwartzCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2011
  2. Polk County v. Department of Land Conservation & DevelopmentCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2008
  3. SAIF Corp. v. SpragueCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2008
  4. Clark v. NoothCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2017
  5. Hopkins v. SAIF Corp.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2007

10 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