Logsdon v. SAIF Corp.
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1DissentWollheim, J.
This is an extent of disability case where one issue is when claimant became medically stationary. Claimant sought to compel the scheduling of depositions so that he could cross-examine the two physicians who provided expert opinions regarding the date claimant became medically stationary. The majority concludes that claimant does not have a constitutional right to cross-examine those physicians. Because I disagree with the majority’s application of the Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 US 319, 335, 96 S Ct 893, 47 L Ed 2d 18 (1976), three-part due process analysis, I respectfully dissent. I also…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- State Ex Rel. Juvenile Department v. GeistOregon Supreme Court · 1990
- Koskela v. Willamette Industries, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 2000
- Carr v. SAIF Corp.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1983
- Trujillo v. Pacific Safety SupplyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2002
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.