Marshall v. SAIF Corp.
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1DissentLeeson, J.
I would affirm the Board. Although I agree with the majority’s definition of corroborative evidence, I disagree with its conclusion that Dr. Rabie’s reports “corroborate both the ‘arising out of and ‘in the course of components of proof of compensability.” 146 Or App at 54. In SAIF v. Marshall, 130 Or App 507, 510, 882 P2d 1115, rev den 320 Or 492 (1994) (Marshall I), we held that the corroborative evidence requirement pertains to compensability, not coverage. In my view, the majority ignores the consequence of that decision, which is that a sole proprietor must present corroborative evidence…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Krushwitz v. McDonald's Restaurants of Oregon, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1996
- First Interstate Bank v. ClarkCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1995
- SAIF Corp. v. MarshallCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1994
- Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. v. GriggsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992