Legal Opinion

Snyder v. SAIF Corp.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided August 23, 2017No. 1304318; A158484PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLagesen, J.

Claimant petitions for review of a final order of the Workers’ Compensation Board. ORS 656.298(1). The issue before us is whether claimant is entitled to a penalty and attorney fees under ORS 656.262(11) on the ground that SAIF Corporation “unreasonably delay [ed] * * * to pay compensation” when it initially closed claimant’s claim for the accepted condition of central cord syndrome without an award of impairment. SAIF did so even though claimant had undergone a spinal surgery that, under the applicable administrative rules, resulted in impairment as a matter of law—an error that SAIF later…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Peeples v. LampertOregon Supreme Court · 2008
  2. Brown v. Argonaut Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1988
  3. McDowell v. Employment DepartmentOregon Supreme Court · 2010
  4. Kennedy v. WheelerOregon Supreme Court · 2014
  5. Hamilton v. Pacific Skyline, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2014

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Travelers Ins. Co. v. Arevalo (In re Comp. of Arevalo)Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2019
  2. Brooks v. Tube Specialties - TSCO InternationalCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2019
  3. SAIF v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2020
  4. Simi v. LTI Inc. - Lynden Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2019
  5. Nava v. SAIFCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2024

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API