Reed v. Labor Force

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Reed v. Labor Force

970 P.2d 684, 157 Or. App. 665, 1998 Ore. App. LEXIS 2251

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedDecember 16, 1998

Docket96-06663; CA A98353

StatusPublished

This text of 970 P.2d 684 (Reed v. Labor Force) 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

Reed v. Labor Force, 970 P.2d 684, 157 Or. App. 665, 1998 Ore. App. LEXIS 2251 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

ARMSTRONG, J.

Claimant seeks reconsideration of our decision in Reed v. Labor Force of Oregon, 155 Or App 595, 964 P2d 298 (1998), in which we held that claimant was not entitled to temporary disability payments for the period between November 1, 1995, and March 12, 1996. Claimant contends that the proper disposition of the case would have been to “remand [it] so that the insurer can undertake to fulfill its legal obligation to verify and document temporary disability authorization.”

Before the Board, claimant argued only that insurer should be required to pay temporary time-loss benefits as a penalty for failing to follow the applicable administrative rules. It was not until the matter was before us that claimant raised the possibility of remand for the purpose of requiring the insurer to verify claimant’s disability. Because claimant did not seek from the Board the relief that he now seeks from us, we will not grant the requested relief.

Reconsideration allowed; original opinion adhered to.

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

ARMSTRONG, J.

Claimant seeks reconsideration of our decision in Reed v. Labor Force of Oregon, 155 Or App 595, 964 P2d 298 (1998), in which we held that claimant was not entitled to temporary disability payments for the period between November 1, 1995, and March 12, 1996. Claimant contends that the proper disposition of the case would have been to “remand [it] so that the insurer can undertake to fulfill its legal obligation to verify and document temporary disability authorization.”

Before the Board, claimant argued only that insurer should be required to pay temporary time-loss benefits as a penalty for failing to follow the applicable administrative rules. It was not until the matter was before us that claimant raised the possibility of remand for the purpose of requiring the insurer to verify claimant’s disability. Because claimant did not seek from the Board the relief that he now seeks from us, we will not grant the requested relief.

Reconsideration allowed; original opinion adhered to.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

970 P.2d 684, 157 Or. App. 665, 1998 Ore. App. LEXIS 2251, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reed-v-labor-force-orctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack