Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Haret v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided March 20, 1985No. 82-05250; CA A31047Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

GILLETTE, J,

concurring in part, dissenting in part.

I agree with the majority’s treatment of when claimant made an aggravation claim and therefore concur in that part of the majority opinion. I disagree with the majority’s analysis of the key issue in this case is whether claimant is entitled to interest on the temporary total disability compensation she received after the hearing as the result of SAIF’s agreement to accept her aggravation claim as of June 11,1982, and on the additional amount of temporary total disability compensation she will receive as a result of our decision. I therefore…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Papadopoulos v. Oregon State Board of Higher EducationCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1980
  2. Compensation of Button v. State Accident Insurance FundCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1980
  3. Portland General Electric Co. v. Department of RevenueOregon Tax Court · 1978

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

Powered by the Exa API