Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Saif Corp. v. Allen

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided September 29, 1994No. WCB 91-09837; CA A76538; SC S40951Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partGraber, J.

I concur fully in the majority’s resolution of the first issue presented in this workers’ compensation case. The Court of Appeals complied with ORS 2.570(4), which requires the “concurrence of two judges * * * to pronounce judgment.”

I dissent, however, from the majority’s abandonment of established principles of statutory construction in its resolution of the second issue. In my view, ORS 656.386(1) does not allow an award of attorney fees when an employer or *223insurer pays medical bills late but does not deny the compen-sability of, or its responsibility for, the claimant’s injury or condition.

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & IndustriesOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Bauman v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1983
  3. Stephens v. BohlmanOregon Supreme Court · 1992
  4. Johnson v. Spectra PhysicsOregon Supreme Court · 1987
  5. Jones v. OREGON STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991

10 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