Nicholson v. Blachly
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partVan Hoomissen, J.
I agree with the majority that, under ORS 656.018, PFE’s liability is to be exclusively determined through the Workers’ Compensation Act (Act). However, I dissent from the dismissal of plaintiffs action against Blachly and IRA. I would hold that the exclusivity provided by the statute does not extend to providers of vocational rehabilitation assistance who are not employes of the worker’s employer or employer’s insurer.
ORS 656.018 provides, in relevant part:
“(1)(a) The liability of every employer who satisfies the duty required by ORS 656.017(1) is exclusive * * *.
“(3) The exemption from…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Fauver v. BellSupreme Court of Virginia · 1951
- Wimer v. MillerOregon Supreme Court · 1963
- Crosby v. SAIF Corp.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1985
- Nicholson v. BlachlyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1987
- State Accident Insurance Fund Corp. v. BelcherCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1984