Legal Opinion · Dissent
Errand v. Cascade Steel Rolling Mills, Inc.
Oregon Supreme Court
Decided February 2, 1995No. CC CV91283; CA A80487; SC S41195Published
1DissentGraber, J.
I dissent. In my view, the majority misreads the applicable statutes and, in doing so, undermines some of the fundamental purposes of the Workers’ Compensation Law.
This case involves an application of the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Law, ORS 656.018, which provides in part:
“ (1) (a) The liability of every employer who satisfies the duty required by ORS 656.017(1) is exclusive and in place of all other liability arising out of compensable injuries to the subject workers, the workers’ beneficiaries and anyone otherwise entitled to recover damages from the employer on…
2Cases cited35 opinions
- Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & IndustriesOregon Supreme Court · 1993
- Hale v. Port of PortlandOregon Supreme Court · 1989
- Weller v. Union Carbide Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1979
- Stephens v. BohlmanOregon Supreme Court · 1992
- Evanhoff v. State Industrial Accident CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 1915
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.