Legal Opinion · Dissent

Koskela v. Willamette Industries, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided March 17, 1999No. WCB 95-08576; CA A97325Published

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

  1. Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance v. SullivanSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
  3. Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1988
  4. Compensation of Harris v. SAIF Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1982
  5. Cook v. Workers' Compensation DepartmentOregon Supreme Court · 1988

4 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