Stone Container v. Fryman

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Stone Container v. Fryman

827 P.2d 205, 112 Or. App. 8, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 499

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMarch 4, 1992

Docket88-10557, 88-10556, 88-10554, 88-05650; CA A66974

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 827 P.2d 205 (Stone Container v. Fryman) 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

Stone Container v. Fryman, 827 P.2d 205, 112 Or. App. 8, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 499 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

This case is before the court on employer’s petition for judicial review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board determining claimant’s claim to be compensable. At the request of claimant, the case was held in abeyance pending the court’s decision in a case presenting similar issues: Aetna Casualty Co. v. Aschbacher, 107 Or App 494, 812 P2d 844 (1991). By letters to the court, employer has requested a decision in its favor and claimant has requested that the case be remanded to the Board for reconsideration in light of the Aschbacher decision. We treat claimant’s letter as a concession of error, and we accept the concession. See SAIF v. Basham, 112 Or App 6, 827 P2d 204 (1992).

Reversed and remanded for reconsideration.

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

PER CURIAM

This case is before the court on employer’s petition for judicial review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board determining claimant’s claim to be compensable. At the request of claimant, the case was held in abeyance pending the court’s decision in a case presenting similar issues: Aetna Casualty Co. v. Aschbacher, 107 Or App 494, 812 P2d 844 (1991). By letters to the court, employer has requested a decision in its favor and claimant has requested that the case be remanded to the Board for reconsideration in light of the Aschbacher decision. We treat claimant’s letter as a concession of error, and we accept the concession. See SAIF v. Basham, 112 Or App 6, 827 P2d 204 (1992).

Reversed and remanded for reconsideration.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

827 P.2d 205, 112 Or. App. 8, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stone-container-v-fryman-orctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack