Case ID: or-app_193/html/0059-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      ARMSTRONG, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

On appellant’s petition for reconsideration filed March 8,
    and respondent’s petition for reconsideration filed March 10,
    and response to appellant’s petition for reconsideration filed March 15;
    reconsideration allowed; former opinion (192 Or App 261, 84 P3d 1105) modified and adhered to as modified April 14,
    petition for review denied June 29, 2004 (337 Or 182)
    Treva LANSFORD, Appellant - Cross-Respondent, v. GEORGETOWN MANOR, INC., an Oregon corporation, dba Ethan Allen, Respondent - Cross-Appellant.
    
    0104-03797; A117930
    88 P3d 305
    Richard C. Busse and Busse & Hunt for appellant’s petition.
    Jeffrey P Chicoine and Newcomb, Sabin, Schwartz & Landsverk, LLP, for respondent’s petition and response.
    Before Landau, Presiding Judge, and Armstrong and Brewer, Judges.
    ARMSTRONG, J.
   ARMSTRONG, J.

Plaintiff and defendant both petition for reconsideration of our decision in Lansford v. Georgetown Manor, Inc., 192 Or App 261, 84 P3d 1105 (2004). We deny defendant’s petition without further discussion. We grant plaintiffs petition and modify footnote one to read as follows:

“The summary judgment record does not establish that there is a factual issue about whether plaintiff had a substantial limitation on her ability to sleep or whether defendant perceived plaintiff as having such a limitation. We therefore reject plaintiffs assertions that she was a qualified individual with a disability or was regarded to be such an individual because of an actual or perceived limitation on her ability to sleep.”

Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified.