Legal Opinion

Stovall v. Sally Salmon Seafood

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided April 8, 1987No. WCB 84-13447, 85-01254; CA A38730PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtButtler, P. J.

In this Workers’ Compensation case, claimant seeks insurer-paid attorney fees for prevailing finally against Hallmark before the Workers’ Compensation Board on a claim for an occupational disease involving carpal tunnel syndrome. The Board declined to award fees, stating that claimant was a nominal party only. Hallmark cross-petitions, arguing that Sally Salmon Seafood should be responsible for the claim. In the alternative, Hallmark asserts that, if it is responsible, claimant should be equitably estopped from receiving benefits, because she provided misleading information concerning her…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Matter of Compensation of BrackeOregon Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Petshow v. Farm Bureau InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1985

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Stovall v. Sally Salmon SeafoodOregon Supreme Court · 1988
  2. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp. v. BatesCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1989
  3. Anfora v. Liberty CommunicationsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1987
  4. Stovall v. Sally Salmon SeafoodOregon Supreme Court · 1988
  5. Stovall v. Sally Salmon SeafoodOregon Supreme Court · 1988

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

Powered by the Exa API