SAIF Corp. v. Marin

Court of Appeals of Oregon

SAIF Corp. v. Marin

875 P.2d 529, 128 Or. App. 161, 1994 Ore. App. LEXIS 773

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMay 25, 1994

DocketWCB 92-07796; CA A81240

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 875 P.2d 529 (SAIF Corp. v. Marin) 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

SAIF Corp. v. Marin, 875 P.2d 529, 128 Or. App. 161, 1994 Ore. App. LEXIS 773 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

DEITS, P. J.

SAIF seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board that holds that claimant’s injury was compensable. Claimant’s injury occurred while he was attempting to jump start his car, which was in the employer’s parking lot, after he had completed his work shift. The issue in the case was whether there was a sufficient work relationship between the injury and claimant’s employment. The Board concluded that the fact that the injury occurred on the employer’s parking lot while he was attempting to leave work established a sufficient work connection to prove compensability.

Since the time of the Board’s decision in this case, the Supreme Court decided Norpac Foods, Inc. v. Gilmore, 318 Or 363, 867 P2d 1373 (1994). In that case, the court explained that in evaluating the work connection of an injury, both the “arising out of’ and “in the course of’ elements of the test must be considered; neither is dispositive. The court stated that the fact that an injury occurs on work premises, such as a parking lot satisfies only the “in the course of’ aspect of the work connection. It remains necessary to evaluate the “arising out of’ aspect of the injury by assessing the causal link between the claimant’s employment and the injury. In this case, the Board considered only the “in the course of’ element of the work-connection test. Accordingly, it is necessary to remand this case to the Board to allow it to consider whether the injury “arose out of’ claimant’s employment.

Reversed and remanded for reconsideration.

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

DEITS, P. J.

SAIF seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board that holds that claimant’s injury was compensable. Claimant’s injury occurred while he was attempting to jump start his car, which was in the employer’s parking lot, after he had completed his work shift. The issue in the case was whether there was a sufficient work relationship between the injury and claimant’s employment. The Board concluded that the fact that the injury occurred on the employer’s parking lot while he was attempting to leave work established a sufficient work connection to prove compensability.

Since the time of the Board’s decision in this case, the Supreme Court decided Norpac Foods, Inc. v. Gilmore, 318 Or 363, 867 P2d 1373 (1994). In that case, the court explained that in evaluating the work connection of an injury, both the “arising out of’ and “in the course of’ elements of the test must be considered; neither is dispositive. The court stated that the fact that an injury occurs on work premises, such as a parking lot satisfies only the “in the course of’ aspect of the work connection. It remains necessary to evaluate the “arising out of’ aspect of the injury by assessing the causal link between the claimant’s employment and the injury. In this case, the Board considered only the “in the course of’ element of the work-connection test. Accordingly, it is necessary to remand this case to the Board to allow it to consider whether the injury “arose out of’ claimant’s employment.

Reversed and remanded for reconsideration.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

875 P.2d 529, 128 Or. App. 161, 1994 Ore. App. LEXIS 773, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saif-corp-v-marin-orctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack