Legal Opinion

Finch v. Stayton Canning Co.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided September 14, 1988No. WCB Nos. 83-03809, 85-00155 and 85-13714 CA A42313PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtNewman, J.

Claimant seeks review of a Workers’ Compensation Board order which affirmed the referee’s order upholding the denials of compensability and refusing penalties for late denial by Tom’s Auto Body (Tom’s). The Board did not reach the issue of responsibility. We review de novo, hold the claim compensable and reverse and remand to the Board with instructions to determine the issues of responsibility and penalties.

For 13 days in November, 1982, claimant worked at Stayton Canning Company (Stayton) as a seasonal employe peeling onions. After a few days of work, she developed a continuing pain at the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Runft v. Saif Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1987
  2. Brooks v. TimberCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1982
  3. Brown v. SAIF Corp.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1986
  4. Johnsen v. Hamilton ElectricCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1988
  5. Amfac, Inc. v. IngramCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1985

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Clinchfield Coal Co. v. ReedCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 2003
  2. K-MART v. EvensonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2000
  3. Barkley v. Corrections DivisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992
  4. Horizon Air Industries, Inc. v. Davis-WarrenCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2014
  5. Guill v. M. Squared Transportation, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2016

3 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