Legal Opinion

Hamilton v. SAIF Corp.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided April 17, 2013No. 0906605; A148339PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtNakamoto, J.

Claimant seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board (board) that concluded that her injury, which occurred from an idiopathic1 fall from a standing position onto the brick floor of her workspace, was not compensable. On judicial review, claimant assigns error to the board’s ruling that the “mixed risk” doctrine does not govern injuries sustained as a result of an idiopathic, ground-level fall and to the board’s failure to consider employer’s requirement that she stand on a hard brick floor during work as a contributing factor to her injury. We conclude that the board did not…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Phil A. Livesley Co. v. RussOregon Supreme Court · 1983
  2. Krushwitz v. McDonald's Restaurants of Oregon, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1996
  3. Norpac Foods, Inc. v. GilmoreOregon Supreme Court · 1994
  4. Fred Meyer, Inc. v. HayesOregon Supreme Court · 1997
  5. Redman Industries, Inc. v. LangOregon Supreme Court · 1997

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Jason Bluml v. Dee Jay's Inc. d/b/a Long John Silvers and Commerce & Industry Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 2018
  2. Sheldon v. U.S. Bank (In re Comp. of Sheldon)Oregon Supreme Court · 2019
  3. Clements v. Aramark Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2021
  4. SAIF v. BlankenshipCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2021

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

Powered by the Exa API