Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)

In the Matter of the Compensation of Dorla R. George, Claimant. GEORGE, nka Koelling, Petitioner, v. RICHARD'S FOOD CENTER et al, Respondents.

PER CURIAM

Affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Claimant seeks judicial review of a Workers' Compensation Board order that affirmed the order of the referee upholding employer's denial of her occupational disease claim. We affirm.

Claimant asks us to remand the case to allow her to supplement the record with her testimony. Because, through her counsel, she agreed to submit the matter to the referee without presenting any testimony, we decline her request.

The petition for judicial review was filed on August 10, 1987, after the effective date of Oregon Laws 1987, chapter 885, and the scope of our review, therefore, is as provided in ORS 183.482 (7) and (8). Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Company, 90 Or. App. 200, 752 P.2d 312 (1988). The opinion and order of the referee, which the Board approved without opinion, is adequate under the standards of review in ORS 656.298. Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Company, supra; see also Younger v. City of Portland, 305 Or. 346, 752 P.2d 262 (1988).

Affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

GEORGE v. RICHARD'S FOOD CENTER
(Apr 20, 1988)