Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ2000734

Regular

Apr 14, 2011

ESTELA OREGON (Deceased), ARMANDO SOTELO, et al vs. ENGLANDER TUALATIN SLEEP PRODUCTS, INC., & COMMERCE & INDUSTRY/AIG CLAIM SERVICE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a prior decision in the case of Estela Oregon (Deceased) v. Englander Tualatin Sleep Products, Inc. The Board adopted the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge. Additionally, the petitioner was admonished for submitting new documents not presented at trial.

Petition for ReconsiderationWCJ ReportDeny ReconsiderationNew DocumentsNot Introduced in EvidenceTrialWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDeceased ApplicantDefendant InsurerAdministrative Law Judge

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Feb 27, 2002

Pro-Fac Cooperative, Inc. v. Alpha Nursery, Inc.

Plaintiffs (Pro-Fac Cooperative, Inc., Agrilink Foods, Inc., and 19 officers/directors) filed a declaratory judgment action against 150 Oregon farm operations concerning contractual relationships related to a former subsidiary, PF Acquisition II, Inc. (PFA). Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. The court determined that personal jurisdiction was lacking under New York's long-arm statute, rejecting arguments that defendants transacted business through agents in New York or contracted to supply goods there. The court also concluded that federal question jurisdiction under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 was inapplicable, as plaintiffs were seeking a declaration against threatened claims, which were primarily based on Oregon state law. Finally, the court exercised its discretion under the Declaratory Judgment Act to dismiss the case, citing concerns about forum shopping and the existence of ongoing litigation in Oregon state court that could more appropriately resolve the issues. The defendants' motions to dismiss were granted, and the complaint was dismissed.

Declaratory Judgment ActPersonal JurisdictionForum ShoppingSecurities Exchange ActLong-Arm StatuteAgency RelationshipSubject Matter JurisdictionAbstention DoctrineFederal Question JurisdictionDiversity Jurisdiction

References

Case No. ADJ2172104 (SAC 0326562)

Regular

Jan 15, 2015

THOMAS MEEKER vs. OREGON PACIFIC BUILDING PRODUCTS, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for FREMONT COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a dispute over the validity of a utilization review (UR) denial for an applicant's requested prescription medication. Initially, the administrative law judge found the UR denial invalid because the reviewing physician did not examine all relevant medical reports. However, following the en banc decision in *Dubon II*, the Appeals Board reversed this finding. The Board ruled that under *Dubon II*, only untimely UR decisions are invalid; other defects, like incomplete medical review, must be addressed through the Independent Medical Review (IMR) process. Therefore, the UR denial was deemed valid as it was timely.

Utilization ReviewRequest for AuthorizationProvigilDubon IIIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityFuture Medical TreatmentPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board

References

Case No. ADJ4415679 (OAK 0259031) ADJ2701101 (WCK0050594)

Regular

May 10, 2010

Stanley Sanders vs. REMEDY INTELLIGENT STAFFING, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for RELIANCE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, OREGON STEEL MILLS, INC. dba NAPA PIPE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed a judge's decision, ruling that Napa Pipe, a self-insured special employer, is liable for applicant Stanley Sanders' workers' compensation benefits. Despite an agreement between the general employer (Remedy Temp) and Napa Pipe attempting to limit liability to Remedy Temp's insurer (Reliance), Napa Pipe's joint and several liability as a special employer cannot be contractually eliminated. Because Napa Pipe's self-insurance was not excluded for special employees and constitutes "other insurance" under Insurance Code § 1063.1(c)(9), CIGA is relieved of its obligation to provide benefits following Reliance's insolvency. Therefore, Napa Pipe must now provide all workers' compensation benefits and administer the claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardStanley SandersRemedy Intelligent StaffingCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationReliance National Insurance CompanyOregon Steel MillsNapa PipeADJ4415679ADJ2701101Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration

References

Case No. ADJ7728639 ADJ7728660 ADJ7759971

Regular

Mar 01, 2012

CHAD HABERMAN vs. THE SUN VALLEY GROUP

This case involves the defendant's Petition for Removal after a WCJ denied their request to compel a continued deposition of the applicant in Oregon. The defendant argued prejudice due to potential travel costs for their attorney if the deposition remained in California. However, the Appeals Board dismissed the petition, finding no significant prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board emphasized that removal is an extraordinary remedy and reconsideration would be adequate to address future decisions on discovery. The parties were encouraged to resolve discovery disputes informally.

Petition for RemovalPetition to CompelPetition to Quashworkers' compensation administrative law judgeWCJapplicant's depositionproduction of documentsGrant's PassOregonEureka

References

Case No. CV-89-2182

Regular Panel Decision

Pabon v. Hake

The petitioner, Pabon, filed a writ of habeas corpus challenging his state court conviction. He argued that his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated by the admission of a videotaped statement at trial, which he claimed was tainted by a prior unwarned statement. Pabon also contended that his sentence violated the Eighth Amendment, alleging it was vindictive punishment for exercising his right to a jury trial. The District Court denied the petition, finding that all his statements were voluntarily made under the Oregon v. Elstad precedent, and thus their admission did not violate his constitutional rights. Furthermore, the court determined that Pabon failed to prove his sentence was unconstitutionally vindictive or based on materially inaccurate information, as it was within statutory limits and supported by trial evidence.

Habeas CorpusFifth AmendmentSixth AmendmentEighth AmendmentMiranda RightsVoluntary StatementCoerced ConfessionVindictive SentencingJury Trial RightDue Process

References

Showing 1-6 of 6 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

ESTELA OREGON (Deceased), ARMANDO SOTELO, et al vs. ENGLANDER TUALATIN SLEEP PRODUCTS, INC., & COMMERCE & INDUSTRY/AIG CLAIM SERVICE

Petition for ReconsiderationWCJ ReportDeny ReconsiderationNew DocumentsNot Introduced in EvidenceTrialWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDeceased ApplicantDefendant InsurerAdministrative Law Judge

Pro-Fac Cooperative, Inc. v. Alpha Nursery, Inc.

THOMAS MEEKER vs. OREGON PACIFIC BUILDING PRODUCTS, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for FREMONT COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

Stanley Sanders vs. REMEDY INTELLIGENT STAFFING, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for RELIANCE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, OREGON STEEL MILLS, INC. dba NAPA PIPE

CHAD HABERMAN vs. THE SUN VALLEY GROUP

Petition for RemovalPetition to CompelPetition to Quashworkers' compensation administrative law judgeWCJapplicant's depositionproduction of documentsGrant's PassOregonEureka

Pabon v. Hake

Habeas CorpusFifth AmendmentSixth AmendmentEighth AmendmentMiranda RightsVoluntary StatementCoerced ConfessionVindictive SentencingJury Trial RightDue Process