affirming board's determination that the circumstances in which the claimant was injured—while walking on a slope that led to a “parking area for employer's vehicles”—were analogous to those contemplated by the parking-lot exception to the “going and coming” rule
Summary of this case from Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. of Oregon v. FrazerFebruary 20, 2001
affirming board's determination that the circumstances in which the claimant was injured—while walking on a slope that led to a “parking area for employer's vehicles”—were analogous to those contemplated by the parking-lot exception to the “going and coming” rule
Summary of this case from Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. of Oregon v. Frazeraffirming board's determination that the circumstances in which the claimant was injured—while walking on a slope that led to a “parking area for employer's vehicles”—were analogous to those contemplated by the parking-lot exception to the “going and coming” rule
Summary of this case from Enter. Rent-A-Car Co. of Or. v. Frazer (In re Comp. of Frazer)equating "scope" of employment with "course" of employment
Summary of this case from Watt v. SAIF Corp. (In re Watt)equating "scope" of employment with "course" of employment
Summary of this case from Watt v. SAIF Corp. (In re Watt)applying unexplained fall doctrine where claimant “[did] not know the reason for her fall,” and there was no other evidence of cause of fall
Summary of this case from Sheldon v. U.S. Bank (In re Comp. of Sheldon)applying analysis from Phil A. Livesley Co. to off-premises area adjacent to workplace over which employer exercised almost exclusive control
Summary of this case from In the Matter of LeopardFull title:PETITIONS FOR REVIEW
Court:Oregon Supreme Court
Date published: Feb 20, 2001
The legal question is whether claimant has adequately explained why idiopathic factors were not the cause of…
Blank v. U.S. Bank of Or. (In re Comp. of Blank)In order for the injury to be compensable, there must be some support for each prong, but neither prong is…