Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.692 (2026)

Making false claim for health care payment

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      165.692 Making false claim for health care payment. A person commits the crime of making a false claim for health care payment when the person:

      (1) Knowingly makes or causes to be made a claim for health care payment that contains any false statement or false representation of a material fact in order to receive a health care payment; or

      (2) Knowingly conceals from or fails to disclose to a health care payor the occurrence of any event or the existence of any information with the intent to obtain a health care payment to which the person is not entitled, or to obtain or retain a health care payment in an amount greater than that to which the person is or was entitled. [1995 c.496 §2]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1999–2016 · leading case: State v. Young, 985 P.2d 835 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Young, 985 P.2d 835 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 5× “2 The effective date of ORS 165.692 was September 9,1995. In his first assignment of error, defendant argues that the trial court erred in not dismissing counts 10 and 28 of the indictment, because the acts on which those counts were based took place before the effective date of…”
State v. Stewart, 314 P.3d 966 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “055 (Counts 1, 3, 5, 7, 42, and 43); four counts of making a false claim for health care payment, ORS 165.692 (Counts 2, 4, 6, and 8); two counts of unlawfully obtaining a food stamp benefit, ORS 411.”
State v. Spynu, 372 P.3d 622 (Multnomah Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016). “Defendant was convicted of seven counts (Counts 1, 3, 5, 7, 13, 15, 17) of making a false claim for a health care payment, in violation of ORS 165.692; one count (Count 6) of aggravated first-degree theft, in violation of ORS 164.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.692(1): 1 case
State v. Young, 985 P.2d 835 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). “2 The effective date of ORS 165.692 was September 9,1995. In his first assignment of error, defendant argues that the trial court erred in not dismissing counts 10 and 28 of the indictment, because the acts on which those counts were based took place before the effective date of…”
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.