Hutchinson v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Hutchinson v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp.

724 P.2d 894, 81 Or. App. 162

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedSeptember 10, 1986

DocketWCB 83-09115 & 84-00654; CA A36379

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 724 P.2d 894 (Hutchinson v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hutchinson v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp., 724 P.2d 894, 81 Or. App. 162 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

RICHARDSON, P. J.

Petitioner - cross-respondent requests reconsideration of our decision in this case, 80 Or App 276, 720 P2d 1350 (1986), pursuant to ORAP 10.10. We allow the petition, modify our decision and affirm it as modified.

On review, petitioner contended that the Workers’ Compensation Board erred in denying penalties and attorney fees which he requested because of SAIF’s late denial of his workers’ compensation claim. ORS 656.262(10). We affirmed the Board’s decision without opinion. Petitioner points out that, under Spivey v. SAIF, 79 Or App 568, 720 P2d 755 (1986), he is entitled to attorney fees. He is not entitled to a penalty for the tardy denial, because there was no compensation then due on which to base a penalty. He is, however, entitled to attorney fees. Spivey v. SAIF, supra.

Reconsideration allowed; reversed and remanded for determination of attorney fees; otherwise affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

RICHARDSON, P. J.

Petitioner - cross-respondent requests reconsideration of our decision in this case, 80 Or App 276, 720 P2d 1350 (1986), pursuant to ORAP 10.10. We allow the petition, modify our decision and affirm it as modified.

On review, petitioner contended that the Workers’ Compensation Board erred in denying penalties and attorney fees which he requested because of SAIF’s late denial of his workers’ compensation claim. ORS 656.262(10). We affirmed the Board’s decision without opinion. Petitioner points out that, under Spivey v. SAIF, 79 Or App 568, 720 P2d 755 (1986), he is entitled to attorney fees. He is not entitled to a penalty for the tardy denial, because there was no compensation then due on which to base a penalty. He is, however, entitled to attorney fees. Spivey v. SAIF, supra.

Reconsideration allowed; reversed and remanded for determination of attorney fees; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

724 P.2d 894, 81 Or. App. 162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hutchinson-v-louisiana-pacific-corp-orctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack