243.303 Local
government authority to make health care insurance coverage available to
retired officers and employees, spouses and children. (1) As used in this section:
(a) “Health care”
means medical, surgical, hospital or any other remedial care recognized by
state law and related services and supplies and includes comparable benefits
for persons who rely on spiritual means of healing.
(b) “Local
government” means any city, county, school district or other special district
in this state.
(c) “Retired
employee” means a former officer or employee of a local government who is
retired for service or disability, and who received or is receiving retirement
benefits, under the Public Employees Retirement System or any other retirement
system or plan applicable to officers and employees of the local government.
(2) The governing
body of any local government that contracts for or otherwise makes available
health care insurance coverage for officers and employees of the local
government shall, insofar as and to the extent possible, make that coverage
available for any retired employee of the local government who elects within 60
days after the effective date of retirement to participate in that coverage
and, at the option of the retired employee, for the spouse of the retired
employee and any unmarried children under 18 years of age. The health care
insurance coverage shall be made available for a retired employee until the
retired employee becomes eligible for federal Medicare coverage, for the spouse
of a retired employee until the spouse becomes eligible for federal Medicare
coverage and for a child until the child arrives at majority, and may, but need
not, be made available thereafter. The governing body may prescribe reasonable
terms and conditions of eligibility and coverage, not inconsistent with this
section, for making the health care insurance coverage available. The local
government may pay none of the cost of making that coverage available or may
agree, by collective bargaining agreement or otherwise, to pay part or all of
that cost.
(3) A local
government and a health care insurer may not create a group solely for the
purpose of rating or of establishing a premium for health care insurance
coverage of retired employees and their dependents that is separate from the
group for health care insurance coverage of officers and employees of the local
government and their dependents. Nothing in this subsection prevents a local
government from allocating rates or premiums differently among retired
employees and their dependents and officers and employees of the local
government and their dependents once the rating or premium is established. [1981
c.240 §1; 1985 c.224 §1; 2001 c.604 §1; 2003 c.62 §1; 2003 c.694 §1]
Note: 243.303 was enacted into law by
the Legislative Assembly but was not added to or made a part of ORS chapter 243
or any series therein by legislative action. See Preface to Oregon Revised
Statutes for further explanation.
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
Notes of Decisions
Doyle v. City of Medford, 337 P.3d 797 (Or. 2014).
· cites it 169× “303(2) did not require it to provide health insurance coverage to plaintiffs; alternatively, the city asserted that there is no civil remedy for a violation of ORS 243.303. The circuit court denied the city’s motion, explain- ing that, “[a]lthough the issue is not free of doubt,…”
Doyle v. City of Medford, 227 P.3d 683 (Or. 2010).
· cites it 39× “030; ORS 243.303, which we describe below; a 1986 city ordinance implementing ORS 243.”
Doyle v. City of Medford, 303 P.3d 346 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 46× “Instead, the court answered the question that had been put to it by the Ninth Circuit — the extent of a local government’s discretion under ORS 243.303 — and its answer was that municipalities have an obligation under ORS 243.”
Bova v. City of Medford, 324 P.3d 492 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 72× “The Ninth Circuit determined that a resolution of the due process claim depended on an interpretation of ORS 243.303, a statute that had not previously been construed and that was ambiguous, and, accordingly, certified *33 the following question to the Oregon Supreme Court:…”
Doyle v. City of Medford, 351 P.3d 768 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 22× “” The trial court determined that, because ORS 243.303 requires an individual to elect to participate in the coverage “within 60 days after the effective date of retirement,” the very latest date on which plaintiffs could have discovered their injury was 60 days after their…”
MT & M Gaming, Inc. v. City of Portland, 383 P.3d 800 (Or. 2016).
· cites it 3× “020 about the effect of a statute, ORS 243.303(2), which requires local governments to extend to their retirees the same health insurance coverage they provide to their employees “insofar as and to the extent possible.”
Bova v. City of Medford, 350 P.3d 607 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 24× “Shortly after issuing its decision in Doyle II, the Supreme Court allowed review in this case, vacated our decision, and remanded “for determination of whether plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on the ground that the city violated ORS 243.303 as determined under ORS…”
Bova v. City of Medford, 326 P.3d 1256 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 8× “The trial court ruled in favor of plaintiff on his claim that the city violated a statute requiring local governments to provide the health care opportunities to retirees, ORS 243.303(2); on his claim that the city violated ORS 659A.”
Bova v. City of Medford, 333 P.3d 1144 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 7× “The trial court ruled in favor of plaintiff on his claim that the city violated a statute requiring local governments to provide the health care opportunities to retirees, ORS 243.303(2); on his claim that the city violated ORS 659A.”
Doyle v. City of Medford (Or. 2014).
· cites it 87× “303(2) did not require it to provide health insurance coverage to plaintiffs; alternatively, the city asserted that there is no civil remedy for a violation of ORS 243.303. The circuit court denied the city’s motion, explain- ing that, “[a]lthough the issue is not free of doubt,…”
Doyle v. City of Medford (Or. 2014).
· cites it 87× “303(2) did not require it to provide health insurance coverage to plaintiffs; alternatively, the city asserted that there is no civil remedy for a violation of ORS 243.303. The circuit court denied the city’s motion, explain- ing that, “[a]lthough the issue is not free of doubt,…”
MT & M Gaming, Inc. v. City of Portland (Or. 2016).
· cites it 3× “020 about the effect of a statute, ORS 243.303(2), which requires local governments to extend to their retirees the same health insurance coverage they provide to their employees “insofar as and to the extent possible.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.303(2) — 14 cases
Doyle v. City of Medford, 337 P.3d 797 (Or. 2014).
“303(2) did not require it to provide health insurance coverage to plaintiffs; alternatively, the city asserted that there is no civil remedy for a violation of ORS 243.303. The circuit court denied the city’s motion, explain- ing that, “[a]lthough the issue is not free of doubt,…”
Doyle v. City of Medford, 303 P.3d 346 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
“Instead, the court answered the question that had been put to it by the Ninth Circuit — the extent of a local government’s discretion under ORS 243.303 — and its answer was that municipalities have an obligation under ORS 243.”
Doyle v. City of Medford, 227 P.3d 683 (Or. 2010).
“030; ORS 243.303, which we describe below; a 1986 city ordinance implementing ORS 243.”
Bova v. City of Medford, 324 P.3d 492 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“The Ninth Circuit determined that a resolution of the due process claim depended on an interpretation of ORS 243.303, a statute that had not previously been construed and that was ambiguous, and, accordingly, certified *33 the following question to the Oregon Supreme Court:…”
Doyle v. City of Medford, 351 P.3d 768 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
“” The trial court determined that, because ORS 243.303 requires an individual to elect to participate in the coverage “within 60 days after the effective date of retirement,” the very latest date on which plaintiffs could have discovered their injury was 60 days after their…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.303(3) — 1 case
Doyle v. City of Medford, 227 P.3d 683 (Or. 2010).
“030; ORS 243.303, which we describe below; a 1986 city ordinance implementing ORS 243.”
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.