Case ID: or-app_132/html/0371-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Argued and submitted December 7, 1994,
    reversed and remanded for reconsideration January 4, 1995
    In the Matter of the Complying Status of Dan J. and Giselle Dana Lane, and In the Matter of the Compensation of Marshall K. Birdwell, Claimant. Dan J. LANE and Giselle Dana Lane, Petitioners, v. SAIF CORPORATION, Department of Insurance and Finance and Marshall K. Birdwell, Respondents.
    
    (92-09931 and 92-08414; CA A80625)
    887 P2d 393
    Kenneth L. Kleinsmith argued the cause for petitioners. On the brief were Mildred J. Carmack, William H. Replogle and Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt.
    David L. Runner, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondents SAIF Corporation and Department of Insurance and Finance. With him on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General.
    No appearance for respondent Marshall K. Birdwell.
    Before Richardson, Chief Judge, and De Muniz, and Leeson, Judges.
    PER CURIAM
    
      
       Richardson, C. J., vice Rossman, P. J., retired.
    
   PER CURIAM

In this workers’ compensation case, the Board determined that petitioners were noncomplying employers and upheld SAIF’s acceptance of claimant’s head and back injury on behalf of petitioners. The Board did not have the benefit of the Supreme Court’s opinion in S-W Floor Cover Shop v. Natl. Council on Comp. Ins., 318 Or 614, 872 P2d 1 (1994), when it issued its order.

SAIF concedes that the Board applied the wrong legal standard and that the case must be remanded to the Board to determine whether petitioners were noncomplying employers with respect to claimant. We accept that concession.

Reversed and remanded for reconsideration.