support for their argument. First, although petitioners acknowledge that no Oregon cases recognize a doctrine of “constructive reopening,” they point out several federal cases that do. As a general matter, when the Secretary of the former Department of Health, Education, and Welfare denied a petition to reopen an earlier claim for Social Security benefits, federal courts lacked jurisdiction t 001) (noting that whether a motion will be considered as a motion for a new trial “is controlled by [the motion’s] substance, not its caption”). Petitioners also cite cases in which, they contend, this court stressed the importance of examining the substance, rather than the form, of legal relations and actions. See NW Medical Lab. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield, 310 Or 72, 83, 794 P2d 428 (1990) (<HOLDING>); Baker v. City of Milwaukie, 271 Or 500,
holding that there must be a causal connection between the alleged antitrust violation and the antitrust injury for there to be antitrust standing holding that maintenance and enforcement of a patent obtained by fraud on the pto can form the basis for antitrust liability holding that an activity which is exempt from the antitrust laws cannot form the basis of an antitrust investigation holding that a plaintiff must show antitrust injury in order to bring an antitrust lawsuit holding that this court determines whether a joint venture has violated oregon antitrust law by looking at substance not form