Betty Roberts

The case concerned a workers' compensation claim by an employee who suffered a shoulder and arm injury from repetitive lifting at work, which required a discectomy and spinal fusion. Prior to that surgery, a carotid endarterectomy was performed as a necessary preliminary step due to an artery condition, and that procedure caused the claimant to develop memory loss and mild dementia. The Court of Appeals had denied compensation, finding only a fortuitous connection between the injury and the endarterectomy because the claimant would have needed it independently. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the endarterectomy was an integral part of the required treatment for the industrial injury with no evidence that it would have occurred otherwise, making the insurer liable for all resulting consequences.

labor & employment

The case concerned whether the Assistant Director of the Employment Division was required to promulgate a rule defining the statutory phrase “systematic and sustained effort to obtain work” before denying a claimant extended unemployment benefits for failing to meet the active work search requirement under ORS 657.325. The Court of Appeals had reversed and remanded, holding that the agency must provide fair notice of the term’s meaning. The Oregon Supreme Court explained that whether prior rulemaking is required is resolved by interpreting the particular statutes that govern the agency in question, which identify the agency’s tasks, discretion, and procedures; general administrative law principles, the APA, or judicial review categories do not themselves compel rulemaking versus adjudication. The court therefore remanded for further analysis under the unemployment insurance statutes rather than deciding the benefits issue on the existing record.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case concerned whether ORS 109.010 creates an enforceable cause of action allowing an adult mentally handicapped child, unable to work due to his disability, to obtain support from a parent. The parents had divorced, and after support for two adult children ended, the mother (as guardian ad litem) sought ongoing payments for 20-year-old James; the trial court awarded $225 monthly, but the Court of Appeals reversed on the ground that the statute stated only a duty without a mechanism for enforcement. The Supreme Court reviewed the statute's history, distinguishing its roots in private familial obligations from the separate Elizabethan poor-law-based public welfare scheme in ORS chapter 416, and concluded that ORS 109.010 independently authorizes a private action to enforce the support duty for qualifying adult children.

family law

The case concerned a defendant convicted in Salem Municipal Court of violating a city ordinance prohibiting driving under the influence of intoxicants. After losing a suppression motion and being convicted following a trial de novo in circuit court, the defendant attempted to appeal evidentiary issues to the Court of Appeals but was barred by ORS 221.360, which limits such appeals from municipal court ordinance violations to challenges against the constitutionality of the ordinance or charter. The defendant argued that this restriction, which did not apply to defendants charged with the same conduct under state law or in district court, violated the equal privileges and immunities guarantee of Article I, section 20 of the Oregon Constitution due to unchecked police discretion in selecting the charging forum and appeal path. The court analyzed the statutory framework creating these differing appellate rights and prior decisions interpreting the limits on jurisdiction.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns whether the Oregon Department of Revenue could require Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. to use a non-statutory apportionment method for its corporate excise tax returns for 1975-1977 instead of the standard three-factor formula (property, payroll, and sales) under the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act. The taxpayer's only Oregon activity was licensing films to independent theaters, and it calculated its property factor using the basis of film prints located in the state. The Department contended that this did not fairly represent the extent of business activity in Oregon and sought to include a portion of film negative production costs allocated by sales percentages, following California guidelines. The Tax Court ruled for the taxpayer, and the reviewing court assessed whether the Department had met its burden of proof through pleadings, stipulations, and witness testimony showing that the statutory formula was inadequate.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

The case involved a dispute over whether a life insurance policy issued by Federal Kemper Life Assurance Company to Susan Olsen's deceased husband became effective, given that the insured learned he had terminal cancer after applying but before the policy was delivered and the first premium paid, without informing the insurer. The Supreme Court of Oregon affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision in favor of the insurer, holding that the policy did not take effect. The court reasoned that the application contained a clear condition precedent requiring the insured's health to remain as described at the time of policy delivery and premium payment, which was not satisfied here, and rejected arguments that policy provisions created ambiguity or superseded the condition.

business & regulatory