Legal Opinion

SAIF Corp. v. Henwood

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided September 5, 2001No. 99-06187; A110815PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSchuman, J.

Health Future, LLC, and its insurer, SAIF (collectively “employer”), seek judicial review of a Workers’ Compensation Board (Board) order finding claimant’s occupational disease compensable and assigning responsibility to employer even though an earlier out-of-state employment was the major contributing cause of the disease. We review for errors of law, ORS 656.298(7) and ORS 183.482(8)(a), and affirm.

Claimant developed carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) from work performed for a California employer and received benefits under California’s workers’ compensation statutes. Subsequently, she moved to…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & IndustriesOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Runft v. Saif Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1987
  3. Roseburg Forest Products v. LongOregon Supreme Court · 1997
  4. Reynolds Metals v. RogersCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1998
  5. Progress Quarries v. VaanderingCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1986

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. In Re Compensation of HunterCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2011
  2. Ahlberg v. SAIF Corp.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2005
  3. Garoutte v. Mail Well Corp.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2005
  4. Garoutte v. Mail-Well Corp.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2005
  5. Pilgrim v. Delta Airlines, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2010

2 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