Legal Opinion

Tri-Met, Inc. v. Wolfe

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided March 24, 2004No. 01-01278; A117374PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*558ARMSTRONG, J.

Employer seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board (board), contending that the board erred in awarding claimant insurer-paid attorney fees pursuant to ORS 656.382(1). We affirm.

The facts are undisputed. Employer delayed its acceptance of claimant’s work-related arm injury beyond the 90 days authorized by statute for acceptance or denial of a claim, ORS 656.262(6)(a).1 Claimant requested a hearing, asserting a de facto denial and seeking penalties and attorney fees. Employer accepted the claim several days later. By that time, claimant had incurred medical bills…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Springfield Education Ass'n v. Springfield School District No. 19Oregon Supreme Court · 1980
  2. Coast Security Mortgage Corp. v. Real Estate AgencyOregon Supreme Court · 2000
  3. COST SECURITY v. Real Estate AgencyOregon Supreme Court · 2000
  4. Saif Corp. v. AllenOregon Supreme Court · 1994
  5. Morgan v. Stimson Lumber Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1980

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Cayton v. Safelite Glass Corp.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2013
  2. Red Robin International v. DombroskyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2006
  3. Kachel v. Weyerhaeuser Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2006
  4. Tri-Met, Inc. v. WolfeCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2004

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

Powered by the Exa API