Shipp v. Beard

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Shipp v. Beard

756 P.2d 57, 91 Or. App. 524, 1988 WL 60008

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJune 15, 1988

DocketWCB 86-00068; CA A45095

StatusPublished

This text of 756 P.2d 57 (Shipp v. Beard) 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

Shipp v. Beard, 756 P.2d 57, 91 Or. App. 524, 1988 WL 60008 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Employer and its insurance carrier seek review of a Workers’ Compensation Board order. The petition for judicial review was filed on July 24,1987, and we therefore review for substantial evidence. Or Laws 1987, ch 884, § 12a; Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co., 90 Or App 200, 205, 752 P2d 312 (1988). Because the Board order is inadequate for judicial review under the standards in Armstrong, we remand to the Board for reconsideration.

Remanded for reconsideration.

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

PER CURIAM

Employer and its insurance carrier seek review of a Workers’ Compensation Board order. The petition for judicial review was filed on July 24,1987, and we therefore review for substantial evidence. Or Laws 1987, ch 884, § 12a; Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co., 90 Or App 200, 205, 752 P2d 312 (1988). Because the Board order is inadequate for judicial review under the standards in Armstrong, we remand to the Board for reconsideration.

Remanded for reconsideration.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

756 P.2d 57, 91 Or. App. 524, 1988 WL 60008, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shipp-v-beard-orctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack