Legal Opinion

Mercer Industries v. Rose

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided January 17, 1990No. 86-16120, 86-03158; CA A51112PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtEdmonds, J.

Mercer Industries seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board that assigned responsibility to it for claimant’s condition. Claimant seeks cross-review of the Board’s order that he was not entitled to employer paid attorney fees. We affirm without discussion on the petition1 and reverse on the cross-petition.

Claimant initiated a hearing under former ORS 656.307 to determine whether American Building Maintenance (American) or Mercer was responsible for claimant’s disability. Both employers agreed that claimant was entitled to compensation but disputed which was responsible for…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Short v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Petshow v. Farm Bureau InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1985
  3. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp. v. PhippsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1987
  4. Anfora v. Liberty CommunicationsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1987
  5. Cascade Corporation v. RoseCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1988

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Mercer Industries v. RoseCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1990

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

Powered by the Exa API