Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.683

Hearings on actions under ORS 657.480, 657.679, 657.681 and 657.682; decision of administrative law judge; amendment of decision

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      657.683 Hearings on actions under ORS 657.480, 657.679, 657.681 and 657.682; decision of administrative law judge; amendment of decision. (1) An application for hearing under ORS 657.480, 657.679, 657.681 or 657.682 shall be in writing and shall state that a determination or assessment of the Director of the Employment Department or authorized representative is unjust or incorrect and that the employing unit requests a hearing. The application shall set forth the objections of the employing unit to the determination or assessment and the amount of contributions, if any, that the applicant admits to be due to the Employment Department. An application for a hearing to review an assessment made under ORS 657.681 (4) that was accompanied by a demand for a bond or deposit is not valid unless the bond or deposit is filed with the application in a form acceptable to the director or authorized representative.

      (2) If a valid application for hearing is filed within the time provided by ORS 657.480, 657.679, 657.681 or 657.682, an administrative law judge shall review the determination or assessment and if requested by the employing unit shall grant a hearing unless a hearing has previously been afforded the employing unit on the same grounds as set forth in the application. The administrative law judge shall give notice of the time and place of the hearing to the director or authorized representative and shall also give notice to the employing unit by mail directed to the last-known address of the employing unit of record with the director.

      (3) Hearings under ORS 657.480, 657.679, 657.681 or 657.682 shall be conducted in accordance with this chapter. The filing of an application for hearing with respect to a disputed assessment does not affect the right of the director or authorized representative to perfect any liens provided by this chapter.

      (4) All testimony at any hearing held under ORS 657.480, 657.679, 657.681 or 657.682 shall be recorded but need not be transcribed unless a petition for judicial review from the decision of the administrative law judge is filed in the manner and within the time prescribed. At any hearing held as provided in ORS 657.480, 657.679, 657.681 or 657.682, the determination or assessment of the director or authorized representative shall be prima facie correct and the burden shall be upon the protesting employing unit to prove that it is incorrect. Thereafter the administrative law judge shall enter the findings of fact and decision, either affirming, modifying, or setting aside the determination or assessment of the director or authorized representative and in the case of an assessment, the administrative law judge may increase or decrease the amount of the assessment. The employing unit and the director shall be promptly notified of the decision of the administrative law judge.

      (5) A decision of the administrative law judge becomes final on the date of notification or the mailing of the decision to the director and to the employing unit at the last-known address of record with the director unless, within the time specified in ORS 183.480 (2), the administrative law judge on the administrative law judge’s own motion reviews the decision and issues an amended decision in which case the amended decision becomes the final decision. [1963 c.354 §4 (657.552, 657.652, 657.679, 657.681 and 657.683 enacted in lieu of 657.472, 657.512, 657.550 and 657.672); 1967 c.435 §9; 1971 c.734 §98; 1999 c.849 §§150,151; 2003 c.75 §55; 2005 c.214 §3; 2007 c.49 §1]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 52 cases, 1965–2017 · leading case: Kaib's Roving R.Ph. Agency, Inc. v. Employment Department
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kaib's Roving R.Ph. Agency, Inc. v. Employment Department (2003) orctapp · cites it 19× “"For the purposes of this case, thus, the essential distinctions between a contested case that is entirely governed by the [Administrative Procedures Act] and a proceeding under ORS 657.683 are that ORS 657.683 establishes a one-step rather than two-step decision-making process…”
Kaib's Roving R.Ph. Agency, Inc. v. Employment Department (2002) orctapp · cites it 7× “For the purposes of this case, thus, the essential distinctions between a contested case that is entirely governed by the APA and a proceeding under ORS 657.683 are that ORS 657.683 establishes a one-step rather than two-step decision-making process and the Director is a party,…”
Avanti Press, Inc. v. Employment Department Tax Section (2012) orctapp · cites it 2× “684 (“Judicial review of decisions under ORS 657.683 shall be as provided for review of orders in contested cases in ORS chapter 183 * * *.”
Portland Columbia Symphony v. Employment Department (2013) orctapp · cites it 3× “684 (“Judicial review of decisions under ORS 657.683 shall be as provided for review of orders in contested cases in ORS chapter 183 ***.”
Kaib's Roving R.Ph. Agency, Inc. v. Employment Department (2005) or · cites it 12× “However, the court pointed out, two sections of the department’s governing statute, ORS 657.683 and ORS 657.684, make it clear that the director is a party to proceedings before a hearing officer.”
Delta Logistics, Inc. v. Employment Department Tax Section (2016) orctapp “The department’s tax assessments are prima facie correct, ORS 657.683(4), and an entity challenging an assessment has the burden to establish that it was not the employer of the person performing the services or that the payments subject to the assessment are excluded from…”
Gross v. Employment Department (2010) orctapp · cites it 3× “The ALJ explained that, because tax assessments and determinations of the department are prima facie correct under ORS 657.683(4), petitioner had the burden to establish that he is not the employer of the person performing services for remuneration *677 or that he should be…”
Compressed Pattern, LLC v. Employment Department Tax Section (2012) orctapp · cites it 2× “684 (“Judicial review of decisions under ORS 657.683 shall be as provided for review of orders in contested cases in ORS chapter 183 ***.”
Broadway Cab LLC v. Employment Department (2015) or “684 provides: “Judicial review of decisions under ORS 657.683 shall be as provided for review of orders in contested cases in ORS chapter 183 12 ORS 183.”
Necanicum Investment Co. v. Employment Department (2008) or “1 ORS 657.683(4) provides, in part: “At any hearing held as provided in ORS 657.”
Travel Networkers, LLC v. Employment Department (2001) orctapp · cites it 3× “ORS 657.683(1). The hearings officer may enter a decision affirming, modifying, or setting aside the Department’s assessment.”
Canvasser Services, Inc. v. Employment Department (1999) orctapp · cites it 2× “Under ORS 657.683(4), the employer has the burden of proving that the Department’s assessment is incorrect.”
Show all 52 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.683(1) — 5 cases
Travel Networkers, LLC v. Employment Department (2001) orctapp “ORS 657.683(1). The hearings officer may enter a decision affirming, modifying, or setting aside the Department’s assessment.”
Kaib's Roving R.Ph. Agency, Inc. v. Employment Department (2005) or “However, the court pointed out, two sections of the department’s governing statute, ORS 657.683 and ORS 657.684, make it clear that the director is a party to proceedings before a hearing officer.”
Sports Clubs, LLC v. Employment Department (2010) orctapp
KAIB'S ROVING v. Employment Dept. (2005) or
Mortgage Galeria, LLC v. Employment Department (2008) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.683(10) — 1 case
Baker v. Cameron (1965) or
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.683(2) — 6 cases
Willamette View Manor, Inc. v. Peet (1968) or
Kaib's Roving R.Ph. Agency, Inc. v. Employment Department (2005) or “However, the court pointed out, two sections of the department’s governing statute, ORS 657.683 and ORS 657.684, make it clear that the director is a party to proceedings before a hearing officer.”
Lincoln County v. Department of Revenue (1988) ortc
M/V Dake II Co. v. Employment Division (1976) orctapp
KAIB'S ROVING v. Employment Dept. (2005) or
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.683(4) — 33 cases
Kaib's Roving R.Ph. Agency, Inc. v. Employment Department (2002) orctapp “For the purposes of this case, thus, the essential distinctions between a contested case that is entirely governed by the APA and a proceeding under ORS 657.683 are that ORS 657.683 establishes a one-step rather than two-step decision-making process and the Director is a party,…”
Kaib's Roving R.Ph. Agency, Inc. v. Employment Department (2003) orctapp “"For the purposes of this case, thus, the essential distinctions between a contested case that is entirely governed by the [Administrative Procedures Act] and a proceeding under ORS 657.683 are that ORS 657.683 establishes a one-step rather than two-step decision-making process…”
Portland Columbia Symphony v. Employment Department (2013) orctapp “684 (“Judicial review of decisions under ORS 657.683 shall be as provided for review of orders in contested cases in ORS chapter 183 ***.”
Delta Logistics, Inc. v. Employment Department Tax Section (2016) orctapp “The department’s tax assessments are prima facie correct, ORS 657.683(4), and an entity challenging an assessment has the burden to establish that it was not the employer of the person performing the services or that the payments subject to the assessment are excluded from…”
Gross v. Employment Department (2010) orctapp “The ALJ explained that, because tax assessments and determinations of the department are prima facie correct under ORS 657.683(4), petitioner had the burden to establish that he is not the employer of the person performing services for remuneration *677 or that he should be…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.683(5) — 6 cases
Kaib's Roving R.Ph. Agency, Inc. v. Employment Department (2002) orctapp “For the purposes of this case, thus, the essential distinctions between a contested case that is entirely governed by the APA and a proceeding under ORS 657.683 are that ORS 657.683 establishes a one-step rather than two-step decision-making process and the Director is a party,…”
Kaib's Roving R.Ph. Agency, Inc. v. Employment Department (2003) orctapp “"For the purposes of this case, thus, the essential distinctions between a contested case that is entirely governed by the [Administrative Procedures Act] and a proceeding under ORS 657.683 are that ORS 657.683 establishes a one-step rather than two-step decision-making process…”
Petersen v. Employment Department (1995) orctapp
Travel Networkers, LLC v. Employment Department (2001) orctapp “ORS 657.683(1). The hearings officer may enter a decision affirming, modifying, or setting aside the Department’s assessment.”
Kaib's Roving R.Ph. Agency, Inc. v. Employment Department (2005) or “However, the court pointed out, two sections of the department’s governing statute, ORS 657.683 and ORS 657.684, make it clear that the director is a party to proceedings before a hearing officer.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.