holding that, because an attorney fee ordered to be paid by the insurer is not an element of the “compensation” a worker receives under the workers' compensation scheme, an attorney's efforts in obtaining or challenging an attorney fee are not eligible for attorney fees
Summary of this case from Bowman v. Saif Corp. (In re Comp. of Bowman)September 23, 1986.
holding that, because an attorney fee ordered to be paid by the insurer is not an element of the “compensation” a worker receives under the workers' compensation scheme, an attorney's efforts in obtaining or challenging an attorney fee are not eligible for attorney fees
Summary of this case from Bowman v. Saif Corp. (In re Comp. of Bowman)adopting U.S. Supreme Court's formulation of prima facie case
Summary of this case from Dennis v. Airport Chevrolet, Inc.adopting U.S. Supreme Court's formulation of prima facie case
Summary of this case from Siring v. Or. State Bd. of Higher Educ.rejecting three-part burden shifting analysis applied under federal discrimination law and requiring only that plaintiff establish prima facie case of discrimination to avoid summary judgment, even where defendant asserted nondiscriminatory reason for action
Summary of this case from Messick v. Horizon Industries Inc.rejecting defendant's argument that it was entitled to summary judgment simply because the record could support its general defense
Summary of this case from Boyd v. Legacy HealthFull title:PETITIONS FOR REVIEW
Court:Oregon Supreme Court
Date published: Sep 23, 1986
Instead, the issue is whether plaintiff's injury was foreseeable. Defendant contends that the facts in this…
Henderson v. Jantzen, Inc.82 Or. App. 462, 728 P.2d 579 (1986). Appeal from the Summary Judgment of the Circuit Court of Hood River…