Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 654.078 (2026)

Contesting violations; hearing; admissibility in criminal or civil proceedings of stipulations involving violations

✓ current as of May 2026

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

654.078 Contesting violations; hearing; admissibility in criminal or civil proceedings of stipulations involving violations. (1) An employer may contest a citation, a proposed assessment of civil penalty and the period of time fixed for correction of a violation, or any of these, by filing with the Department of Consumer and Business Services, within 30 days after receipt of the citation, notice or order, a written request for a hearing before the Workers’ Compensation Board. Such a request need not be in any particular form, but shall specify the alleged violation that is contested and the grounds upon which the employer considers the citation or proposed penalty or correction period unjust or unlawful.

(2) An affected employee or representative of such employees may contest the time fixed for correction of a violation by filing with the department, within 30 days after the receipt by the employer of the citation, notice or order which fixes such time for correction, a written request for a hearing before the board. Such a request need not be in any particular form, but shall specify the violation in question and the grounds upon which the employee considers the correction period to be unreasonable.

(3) A hearing on any question relating to the validity of a citation or the proposed civil penalty to be assessed therefor shall not be granted unless a request for hearing is filed by the employer within the period specified in subsection (1) of this section. If a request for hearing is not so filed, the citation and the assessment of penalty as proposed shall be a final order of the department and shall not be subject to review by any agency or court.

(4) A hearing relating to the reasonableness of the time prescribed for the correction of a violation shall not be granted, except for good cause shown, unless a request for hearing is filed within the period specified in subsections (1) and (2) of this section. If a request for hearing is not so filed the time fixed for correction of the violation shall be a final order of the department and shall not be subject to review by any agency or court.

(5) Where an employer contests, in good faith and not solely for delay or avoidance of penalties, the period of time fixed for correction of a nonserious violation, such period of time shall not run between the date the request for hearing is filed and the date the order of the department becomes final by operation of law or on appeal.

(6) Where an employer or employee contests the period of time fixed for correction of a serious violation, any hearing on that issue shall be conducted as soon as possible and shall take precedence over other hearings conducted by the board under the provisions of ORS 654.001 to 654.295, 654.412 to 654.423 and 654.750 to 654.780.

(7) Where informal disposition of a contested case is made by stipulation, agreed settlement or a consent order, such stipulation, settlement or order shall not be pleaded or admissible in evidence as an admission or confession in any criminal prosecution or in any other civil proceeding that may be instituted against the employer, except in the case of a civil proceeding brought to enforce such stipulation, settlement or order. [1973 c.833 §18 (enacted in lieu of 654.055); 1977 c.804 §38; 2007 c.432 §1]

654.080 [Repealed by 1973 c.833 §34 (654.290 enacted in lieu of 654.040, 654.065, 654.070, 654.075 and 654.080)]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases, 1976–1997 · leading case: Oregon Occupational Saf. & Health Div. v. Don Whitaker Logging, Inc., 861 P.2d 368 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Oregon Occupational Saf. & Health Div. v. Don Whitaker Logging, Inc., 861 P.2d 368 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “ORS 654.078. At the hearing, employer conceded the validity of one of the citations and moved to dismiss the other two.”

Oregon Occupational Saf. & Health Div. v. Tom O'Brien Constr. Co., 941 P.2d 550 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). “ORS 654.078(1); ORS 654.290. 4 At the hearing, OR-OSHA argued that, because Autry was a supervisor, his knowledge of the violation should be imputed to employer, thereby establishing prima facie evidence of employer knowledge.”

Enoch Skirvin & Sons, Inc. v. Accident Prevention Div., 573 P.2d 747 (Or. Ct. App. 1978). “Petitioner timely filed a request for hearing pursuant to ORS 654.078(1); reference was made pursuant to ORS 654.”

Oregon Occupational Saf. & Health Div. v. Don Whitaker Logging, Inc., 941 P.2d 1025 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). “ORS 654.078. At the close of OR-OSHA’s case, employer moved to dismiss items 1-2A, 1-2C, 1-3 and 1-4 on the ground that OR-OSHA had failed to show that employer had either actual or constructive knowledge of each alleged violation, which is necessary to find that a serious…”

Oregon Occupational Saf. & Health Div. v. Mad Creek Logging, 861 P.2d 365 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). “The penalty is reviewable by the referee pursuant to ORS 654.078. The Workers’ Compensation Board’s referee’s order is considered to be the final order of the Board.”

Accident Prevention Div. v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 667 P.2d 543 (Or. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 3× “” 1 Hoffman contested the citation under ORS 654.078. On May 18, 1981, after another inspection of the same worksite, Hoffman received another citation for several violations.”

Accident Prevention Div. v. Van Eyk, 572 P.2d 671 (Or. Ct. App. 1977). “Petitioner excepted to the citation, and a hearing was held before a referee pursuant to ORS 654.078. The parties stipulated to the facts giving rise to the cited violations and to the dollar amounts of the proposed penalties should the alleged violations be sustained.”

Accident Prevention Div. v. Cascade Forest Prods., Inc., 721 P.2d 851 (Or. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 7× “ORS 654.078(1). 3 The referee affirmed APD’s decision, and petitioner sought judicial review.”

Oregon Occupational Saf. & Health Div. v. Redi-Rooter, 826 P.2d 1052 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). “ORS 654.078. OSHD argues that the referee erred in dismissing a citation and the $1,050 penalty that OSHD had imposed against respondent for violating safety provisions that require all employees, while working on unguarded surfaces more than ten feet above a lower level, to use…”

Accident Prevention Div. v. Fought & Co., Inc., 555 P.2d 472 (Or. Ct. App. 1976). “1 Pursuant to ORS 654.078 the respondent thereafter filed notice of its intent to contest the citation together with a request for a hearing before the Board.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 654.078(1) — 5 cases

Oregon Occupational Saf. & Health Div. v. Don Whitaker Logging, Inc., 861 P.2d 368 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). “ORS 654.078. At the hearing, employer conceded the validity of one of the citations and moved to dismiss the other two.”

Accident Prevention Div. v. Cascade Forest Prods., Inc., 721 P.2d 851 (Or. Ct. App. 1986). “ORS 654.078(1). 3 The referee affirmed APD’s decision, and petitioner sought judicial review.”

Accident Prevention Div. v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 667 P.2d 543 (Or. Ct. App. 1983). “” 1 Hoffman contested the citation under ORS 654.078. On May 18, 1981, after another inspection of the same worksite, Hoffman received another citation for several violations.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 654.078(3) — 2 cases

Accident Prevention Div. v. Cascade Forest Prods., Inc., 721 P.2d 851 (Or. Ct. App. 1986). “ORS 654.078(1). 3 The referee affirmed APD’s decision, and petitioner sought judicial review.”

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.