Koskela v. Willamette Industries, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1DissentWollheim, J.
I join in Judge De Muniz’ dissent but write separately for two reasons. The first is to articulate my own difficulties with the majority’s opinion. The second is to highlight what I perceive to be the systematic erosion of due process rights in Oregon’s Workers’ Compensation Law.
I take issue with the majority on three points, the first of which is its ad hoc application of the three-part balancing test found in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 US 319, 335, 96 S Ct 893, 47 L Ed 18 (1976). The majority acknowledges the difference between Mathews and the case at bar, concluding that Mathews does not…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance v. SullivanSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
- Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1988
- Compensation of Harris v. SAIF Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1982
- Cook v. Workers' Compensation DepartmentOregon Supreme Court · 1988
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.