Legal Opinion

SAIF Corp. v. Haley

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided December 27, 2012No. 0805156; A143176PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

This case is on remand from the Supreme Court, SAIF v. Haley, 352 Or 564, 291 P3d 736 (2012). In our prior decision, we held that claimant was not entitled to an insurer-paid attorney fee under ORS 656.382(2) because she did not prevail at the hearing, which SAIF requested. We relied on our decision in SAIF v. DeLeon, 241 Or App 614, 251 P3d 794 (2011), but the Supreme Court reversed, SAIF v. DeLeon, 352 Or 130, 282 P3d 800 (2012), and held that the claimant was entitled to an insurer-paid attorney fee under the same circumstances as here. On remand, we affirm the Workers’ Compensation…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. SAIF Corp. v. DeLeonOregon Supreme Court · 2012
  2. SAIF Corp. v. DeLeonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2011

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. SAIF Corp. v. PrestonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2013
  2. SAIF Corp. v. StrohmCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2013

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

Powered by the Exa API