431.180
Interference with individual’s selection of health care provider, treatment or
religious practice prohibited.
(1) Nothing in ORS 431.001 to 431.550 and 431.990 or any other public health
law of this state shall be construed as authorizing the Oregon Health Authority
or its representatives, or any local public health authority or its
representatives, to interfere in any manner with an individual’s right to
select the physician, physician associate, naturopathic physician or nurse
practitioner of the individual’s choice or the individual’s choice of mode of
treatment, nor as interfering with the practice of a person whose religion
treats or administers sick or suffering people by purely spiritual means.
(2) This section
does not apply to the laws of this state imposing sanitary requirements or
rules adopted under the laws of this state imposing sanitary requirements. [Amended
by 1977 c.582 §15; 2007 c.70 §238; 2009 c.595 §541; 2014 c.45 §49; 2015 c.736 §36;
2017 c.356 §59; 2024 c.73 §74]
431.190 [1977 c.448 §8; 1993 c.742 §96;
2009 c.595 §542; repealed by 2011 c.720 §228]
431.195 [1983 c.653 §1; 2001 c.900 §147;
2003 c.784 §10; 2005 c.771 §3; 2009 c.595 §543; 2011 c.720 §183; 2015 c.736 §5;
renumbered 431.122 in 2015]
FINANCIAL
ADMINISTRATION; SURPLUS PROPERTY; FEDERAL AID
Notes of Decisions
Free Oregon, Inc. v. Oregon Health Auth. (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 24× “Next, petitioners contend that the rules conflict with two other statutes: ORS 431.180 and ORS 433.416. Petitioners then assert that the rules are preempted by section 564 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), codified at 21 USC § 360bbb-3.”
Free Oregon, Inc. v. Oregon Health Auth. (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 24× “Next, petitioners contend that the rules conflict with two other statutes: ORS 431.180 and ORS 433.416. Petitioners then assert that the rules are preempted by section 564 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), codified at 21 USC § 360bbb-3.”
Johnson v. Brown (D. Or. 2021).
· cites it 9× “Plaintiffs allege that the Vaccine Orders coerce Plaintiffs into taking experimental medication and thus interfere with Plaintiffs’ choice of treatment for COVID-19, in violation of ORS § 431.180. Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO.”
City of Cornelius v. Dept. of Land Conservation (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 2× “, 329 Or App at 473 (“As we have mentioned, the scope of our review is limited to an evaluation of whether the rules, on their face, conflict with ORS 431.180. We are not called upon, and are not permitted within this proceed- ing, to evaluate the extent to which a particular…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 431.180(1) — 3 cases
Johnson v. Brown (D. Or. 2021).
“Plaintiffs allege that the Vaccine Orders coerce Plaintiffs into taking experimental medication and thus interfere with Plaintiffs’ choice of treatment for COVID-19, in violation of ORS § 431.180. Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO.”
Free Oregon, Inc. v. Oregon Health Auth. (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“Next, petitioners contend that the rules conflict with two other statutes: ORS 431.180 and ORS 433.416. Petitioners then assert that the rules are preempted by section 564 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), codified at 21 USC § 360bbb-3.”
Free Oregon, Inc. v. Oregon Health Auth. (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“Next, petitioners contend that the rules conflict with two other statutes: ORS 431.180 and ORS 433.416. Petitioners then assert that the rules are preempted by section 564 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), codified at 21 USC § 360bbb-3.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 431.180(2) — 2 cases
Free Oregon, Inc. v. Oregon Health Auth. (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“Next, petitioners contend that the rules conflict with two other statutes: ORS 431.180 and ORS 433.416. Petitioners then assert that the rules are preempted by section 564 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), codified at 21 USC § 360bbb-3.”
Free Oregon, Inc. v. Oregon Health Auth. (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“Next, petitioners contend that the rules conflict with two other statutes: ORS 431.180 and ORS 433.416. Petitioners then assert that the rules are preempted by section 564 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), codified at 21 USC § 360bbb-3.”
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.