Hicks v. Fred Meyer, Inc.
643 P.2d 1311, 58 Or. App. 18
Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided June 23, 1982·No. No. 79-00920, CA A21996·Published·Cited by 3 cases
Opinion
Employer and its compensation insurance carrier petitioned for reconsideration of our decision. They do not contend the result is wrong but point out that we misstated the factual basis of the decision in Wilson v. SAIF, 48 Or App 993, 618 P2d 473 (1980), in discussing that case. They are correct. The opinion presently reads in part:
“In Wilson, the carrier acted unilaterally by deducting the amount of overpayment from the compensation awarded by the determination order. * * *” 57 Or App at 70.
The sentence is modified to read as follows:
“In Wilson, the carrier acted unilaterally by deducting the amount of overpayment from the compensation awarded by the referee after a hearing. * * *”
The petition for reconsideration is granted, and the opinion, as modified, is adhered to.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Hicks v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 643 P.2d 1311, 58 Or. App. 18 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).
643 P.2d 1311 (Hicks v. Fred Meyer, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Forney v. Western States Plywood
672 P.2d 1376 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1983)
State Accident Insurance Fund Corp. v. Harris
672 P.2d 1384 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1983)
Hiltz v. Phil's Quality Market
337 N.W.2d 237 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1983)