Nicholson v. Salem Area Transit

866 P.2d 525, 126 Or. App. 172, 1994 Ore. App. LEXIS 86
Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided January 26, 1994·No. 91-03460; CA A76237·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Claimant seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board holding that it does not have jurisdiction to review an order of the Director under ORS 656.245(1)(b) concerning the appropriateness of palliative care. We have disposed of most of the issues that claimant raises in Hathaway v. Health Future Enterprises, 125 Or App 549, 865 P2d 503 (1993). Claimant contends that the Board’s ruling that claimant has no right to a hearing on palliative care disputes violates the United States and Oregon constitutions. The issue is raised for the first time on review, and we will not address it.

Affirmed.

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

Nicholson v. Salem Area Transit, 866 P.2d 525, 126 Or. App. 172, 1994 Ore. App. LEXIS 86 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).

866 P.2d 525 (Nicholson v. Salem Area Transit) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Nicholson v. Salem Area Transit & Saif Corp.
884 P.2d 864 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1994)
Samayoa v. Greenwood Inn
867 P.2d 570 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1994)