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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 654.290 (2026)

Applicability of Administrative Procedures Act; Administrative Law Judge qualifications

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      654.290 Applicability of Administrative Procedures Act; Administrative Law Judge qualifications. (1) Promulgation by the Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services or by the Workers’ Compensation Board of regulations, rules and standards authorized by ORS 654.001 to 654.295, 654.412 to 654.423 and 654.750 to 654.780, and any judicial review thereof, shall be as provided in ORS chapter 183.

      (2) Notwithstanding ORS 183.315 (1), the issuance of orders pursuant to ORS 654.001 to 654.295, 654.412 to 654.423 and 654.750 to 654.780, the conduct of hearings in contested cases and the judicial review thereof shall be as provided in ORS chapter 183, except that:

      (a) The chairperson of the Workers’ Compensation Board or the designee of the chairperson shall employ Administrative Law Judges to hold hearings in contested cases.

      (b) The order of an Administrative Law Judge in a contested case shall be deemed to be a final order of the board.

      (c) The director shall have the same right to judicial review of the order of an Administrative Law Judge as any person who is adversely affected or aggrieved by such final order.

      (d) Affected employees or their authorized representative shall be accorded an opportunity to participate as parties in hearings.

      (3) Administrative Law Judges shall be licensees in good standing of the Oregon State Bar and possess such other qualifications as the board may prescribe, and shall be employed in accordance with ORS 656.724. [1973 c.833 §35 (enacted in lieu of 654.040, 654.065, 654.070, 654.075 and 654.080); 1975 c.759 §18; 1977 c.804 §43; 1999 c.876 §1; 2025 c.32 §110]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1976–2025 · leading case: Oregon Occupational Saf. & Health Div. v. Don Whitaker Logging, Inc., 985 P.2d 1272 (Or. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Oregon Occupational Saf. & Health Div. v. Don Whitaker Logging, Inc., 985 P.2d 1272 (Or. 1999). · cites it 2× “” See ORS 654.290(1) (judicial review shall be as provided by ORS 183.”
OR-OSHA v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 494 P.3d 959 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “3 During the inspection, Walker noticed, adjacent to a walk- way, the end of a shaft that drives a belt on a packing sorting conveyor.”
Oregon Occupational Saf. & Health Div. v. Tom O'Brien Constr. Co., 941 P.2d 550 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “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). · cites it 2× “078(1); reference was made pursuant to ORS 654.290(2) to a referee for a determination based on the parties’ affidavits.”
Oregon Occupational Saf. & Health Div. v. Moore Excavation, Inc., 307 P.3d 510 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “Pursuant to ORS 654.290(2)(b), the ALJ’s order is deemed to be a final order of the Workers’ Compensation Board for purposes of judicial review.”
Oregon Occupational Saf. & Health Div. v. CBI Servs., Inc., 295 P.3d 660 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “” Pursuant to ORS 654.290(2)(b), the ALJ’s order is deemed to be a final order of the Workers’ Compensation Board for purposes of judicial review.”
Oregon Occupational Saf. & Health Div. v. Roseburg Lumber Co., 949 P.2d 307 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). “482; ORS 654.290(2). We reverse the order on the petition and reverse and remand the order to the ALJ for reconsideration on the cross-petition.”
Accident Prevention Div. v. Asana, 821 P.2d 432 (Or. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “ORS 654.290; ORS 183.482. We reverse. 1 Employer is engaged in the repair and installation of sewer pipes and related activities.”
Oregon Occupational Saf. & Health Div. v. Eslinger Logging, Inc., 967 P.2d 889 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). “Hearings on alleged violations of those rules should focus on the merits of the allegations rather than on attempts to find minor flaws in OR-OSHA’s investigation. The primary purpose of the hearing is to examine the conduct of the employer, not of OR-OSHA.”
Oregon Occupational Saf. & Health Div. v. CC & L Roofing Co., 273 P.3d 178 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “1 Pursuant to ORS 654.290(2)(b), the ALJ’s order is deemed to be a final order of the Workers’ Compensation Board.”
Oregon Occupational Saf. & Health Div. v. Jeld-Wen, Inc., 988 P.2d 418 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). “” ORS 654.290(2)(b). We will refer to the decision maker here as the “Board.”
Oregon Occupational Saf. & Health Div. v. Affordable Roofing, Inc., 865 P.2d 439 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). “Under ORS 654.290(2)(b), the referee’s order is deemed to be the final order of the Workers’ Compensation Board.”
Show all 26 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 654.290(1) — 1 case
Oregon Occupational Saf. & Health Div. v. Don Whitaker Logging, Inc., 985 P.2d 1272 (Or. 1999). “” See ORS 654.290(1) (judicial review shall be as provided by ORS 183.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 654.290(2) — 7 cases
Enoch Skirvin & Sons, Inc. v. Accident Prevention Div., 573 P.2d 747 (Or. Ct. App. 1978). “078(1); reference was made pursuant to ORS 654.290(2) to a referee for a determination based on the parties’ affidavits.”
Oregon Occupational Saf. & Health Div. v. Roseburg Lumber Co., 949 P.2d 307 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). “482; ORS 654.290(2). We reverse the order on the petition and reverse and remand the order to the ALJ for reconsideration on the cross-petition.”
OR-OSHA v. Laborworks Ind. / Tradesman Int., 344 Or. App. 66 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
OR-OSHA v. Laborworks Ind. / Tradesman Int., 344 Or. App. 66 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
Or. Occupational Saf. & Health Div. v. CBI Servs., Inc., 432 P.3d 321 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 654.290(2)(a) — 2 cases
Oregon Occupational Saf. & Health Div. v. Tom O'Brien Constr. Co., 941 P.2d 550 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). “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.”
Accident Prevention Div. v. Asana, 821 P.2d 432 (Or. Ct. App. 1991). “ORS 654.290; ORS 183.482. We reverse. 1 Employer is engaged in the repair and installation of sewer pipes and related activities.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 654.290(2)(b) — 15 cases
OR-OSHA v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 494 P.3d 959 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “3 During the inspection, Walker noticed, adjacent to a walk- way, the end of a shaft that drives a belt on a packing sorting conveyor.”
Oregon Occupational Saf. & Health Div. v. Don Whitaker Logging, Inc., 985 P.2d 1272 (Or. 1999). “” See ORS 654.290(1) (judicial review shall be as provided by ORS 183.”
Oregon Occupational Saf. & Health Div. v. Moore Excavation, Inc., 307 P.3d 510 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “Pursuant to ORS 654.290(2)(b), the ALJ’s order is deemed to be a final order of the Workers’ Compensation Board for purposes of judicial review.”
Enoch Skirvin & Sons, Inc. v. Accident Prevention Div., 573 P.2d 747 (Or. Ct. App. 1978). “078(1); reference was made pursuant to ORS 654.290(2) to a referee for a determination based on the parties’ affidavits.”
Oregon Occupational Saf. & Health Div. v. CBI Servs., Inc., 295 P.3d 660 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “” Pursuant to ORS 654.290(2)(b), the ALJ’s order is deemed to be a final order of the Workers’ Compensation Board for purposes of 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.