179.620
Liability of person or estate for cost of care. (1) A person and the personal
estate of the person, or a decedent’s estate, is liable for the full cost of
care. Full cost of care is established according to ORS 179.701.
(2) While the
person is liable for the full cost of care, the maximum amount a person is
required to pay toward the full cost of care shall be determined according to
the person’s ability to pay. Ability to pay is determined as provided in ORS
179.640.
(3) Upon the
death of a person, the decedent’s estate shall be liable for any unpaid cost of
care. The liability of the decedent’s estate is limited to the cost of care
incurred on or after July 24, 1979. The decedent’s estate shall not include
assets placed in trust for the person by other persons. Collection of any
amount from a decedent’s estate shall be pursuant to ORS 179.740.
(4) Regardless of
subsection (1) of this section and ORS 179.610 (5), assets held in trust by a
trustee for a person are subject to laws generally applicable to trusts.
(5)
Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (3) of this section, the Department of
Corrections, the Department of Human Services and the Oregon Health Authority
may not collect the cost of care from:
(a) Any assets
received by or owing to a person and the personal estate of the person, or the
decedent’s estate, as compensation from the state for injury, death or, if the
collection is being made by the Department of Corrections, the false
imprisonment of the person that occurred when the person was in a state
institution listed in ORS 179.321 or in the Eastern Oregon Training Center and
for which the state admits liability or is found liable through adjudication;
and
(b) Any real or
personal property of the personal estate of the person, or the decedent’s
estate, that the person or an authorized representative of the person can
demonstrate was purchased solely with assets referred to in paragraph (a) of
this subsection or partially with such assets, to the extent such assets were
used in the purchase. [1959 c.652 §2; 1961 c.501 §1; 1973 c.823 §§122,158; 1979
c.684 §2; 1989 c.348 §2; 1999 c.159 §1; 2001 c.487 §2; 2009 c.595 §148; 2013
c.36 §58]
179.630 [1959 c.652 §3 (1); 1963 c.598 §1;
1967 c.549 §3; repealed by 1973 c.546 §13]
179.635 [1969 c.257 §§2,3,4,5; 1971 c.750 §3;
repealed by 1973 c.546 §13 and 1973 c.806 §2a; amended by 1973 c.827 §22]
Notes of Decisions
State v. K.J.B. (In re K.J.B.), 416 P.3d 291 (Or. 2018).
· cites it 2× “It then moved to dismiss the review proceeding on **786 the ground that it had become moot. The petitioner argued that, even though he had been released, a judicial determination of the lawfulness of the commitment order to the jurisdiction of PSRB remained a live controversy…”
Brumnett v. Psychiatric Sec. Review Bd., 848 P.2d 1194 (Or. 1993).
· cites it 2× “Petitioner responded that the case was not moot, because he was still subject to a statutory obligation to pay all or part of the costs of his care under ORS 179.620 and that a lien for those costs could be placed on his property under ORS 179.”
Barnes v. Thompson, 977 P.2d 431 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “2d 1194 (emphasis added) (quoting ORS 179.620(1)). The court went on to note, though, that there were provisions "for waiver of collection of any amount declared payable" under certain circumstances.”
Fredenburg v. Mental Health Div., 807 P.2d 812 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 5× “Division billed those patients for the cost of their care pursuant to ORS 179.620 (since amended by Or Laws 1989, ch 348, § 2).”
Dietrich v. Brooks, 558 P.2d 357 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).
“We hold that any incremental injury to reputation beyond that occasioned by the original commitment is negligible and that no financial liability under ORS 179.620 beyond that envisioned by the original commitment has been created.”
Bowers v. Bd. of Parole, 483 P.3d 22 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“The petitioner noted that, under ORS 179.620, he was liable to the state for the costs of his care.”
McCauley v. Dep't of Revenue, 566 P.2d 537 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 10× “ORS 179.620 provides: "(1) If a person at a state institution is possessed of an income sufficient to enable him to pay the expenses of his care and maintenance, the person at the state institution is required to reimburse the State of Oregon for the cost of the care and…”
Owens v. Heisel, 679 P.2d 331 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 4× “The state filed a claim against the beneficiary’s estate under ORS 179.620 2 and was joined as a defendant when plaintiff brought this action seeking to compel establishment of the testamentary trust.”
State ex rel. Oregon Health Auth. v. Cue, 398 P.3d 467 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“Pursuant to ORS 179.620 (providing that the decedent’s estate “shall be liable for any unpaid cost of care” in a state institution), OHA submitted a claim seeking reimbursement for the costs of Cloud’s care at OSH in the amount of $666,187.”
State Bd. of Control v. Loprinzi, 424 P.2d 889 (Or. 1967).
“The statutory standard of “ability to pay”, supra, during the ward’s lifetime is not intended to be the same as the standard of ORS 179.620(3), supra. Assuming, without deciding, that the Board of Control had the authority to make the settlement of April, 1955, with the guardian…”
State ex rel. Dep't of Revenue v. Parker, 521 P.2d 38 (Or. Ct. App. 1974).
“630 (1) provides: “(1) Relatives of a person at a state institution are liable for the care and maintenance of such person under ORS 179.620, according to their respective abilities to pay, as follows: "* * * * * “(c) The parents for their children.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 179.620(1) — 3 cases
Barnes v. Thompson, 977 P.2d 431 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
“2d 1194 (emphasis added) (quoting ORS 179.620(1)). The court went on to note, though, that there were provisions "for waiver of collection of any amount declared payable" under certain circumstances.”
Brumnett v. Psychiatric Sec. Review Bd., 848 P.2d 1194 (Or. 1993).
“Petitioner responded that the case was not moot, because he was still subject to a statutory obligation to pay all or part of the costs of his care under ORS 179.620 and that a lien for those costs could be placed on his property under ORS 179.”
McCauley v. Dep't of Revenue, 566 P.2d 537 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).
“ORS 179.620 provides: "(1) If a person at a state institution is possessed of an income sufficient to enable him to pay the expenses of his care and maintenance, the person at the state institution is required to reimburse the State of Oregon for the cost of the care and…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 179.620(2) — 1 case
McCauley v. Dep't of Revenue, 566 P.2d 537 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).
“ORS 179.620 provides: "(1) If a person at a state institution is possessed of an income sufficient to enable him to pay the expenses of his care and maintenance, the person at the state institution is required to reimburse the State of Oregon for the cost of the care and…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 179.620(3) — 3 cases
McCauley v. Dep't of Revenue, 566 P.2d 537 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).
“ORS 179.620 provides: "(1) If a person at a state institution is possessed of an income sufficient to enable him to pay the expenses of his care and maintenance, the person at the state institution is required to reimburse the State of Oregon for the cost of the care and…”
State Bd. of Control v. Loprinzi, 424 P.2d 889 (Or. 1967).
“The statutory standard of “ability to pay”, supra, during the ward’s lifetime is not intended to be the same as the standard of ORS 179.620(3), supra. Assuming, without deciding, that the Board of Control had the authority to make the settlement of April, 1955, with the guardian…”
Owens v. Heisel, 679 P.2d 331 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
“The state filed a claim against the beneficiary’s estate under ORS 179.620 2 and was joined as a defendant when plaintiff brought this action seeking to compel establishment of the testamentary trust.”
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.