Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.012

Findings and policy

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

      656.012 Findings and policy. (1) The Legislative Assembly finds that:

      (a) The performance of various industrial enterprises necessary to the enrichment and economic well-being of all the citizens of this state will inevitably involve injury to some of the workers employed in those enterprises;

      (b) The method provided by the common law for compensating injured workers involves long and costly litigation, without commensurate benefit to either the injured workers or the employers, and often requires the taxpayer to provide expensive care and support for the injured workers and their dependents; and

      (c) An exclusive, statutory system of compensation will provide the best societal measure of those injuries that bear a sufficient relationship to employment to merit incorporation of their costs into the stream of commerce.

      (2) In consequence of these findings, the objectives of the Workers’ Compensation Law are declared to be as follows:

      (a) To provide, regardless of fault, sure, prompt and complete medical treatment for injured workers and fair, adequate and reasonable income benefits to injured workers and their dependents;

      (b) To provide a fair and just administrative system for delivery of medical and financial benefits to injured workers that reduces litigation and eliminates the adversary nature of the compensation proceedings, to the greatest extent practicable, while providing for access to adequate representation for injured workers;

      (c) To restore the injured worker physically and economically to a self-sufficient status in an expeditious manner and to the greatest extent practicable;

      (d) To encourage maximum employer implementation of accident study, analysis and prevention programs to reduce the economic loss and human suffering caused by industrial accidents; and

      (e) To provide the sole and exclusive source and means by which subject workers, their beneficiaries and anyone otherwise entitled to receive benefits on account of injuries or diseases arising out of and in the course of employment shall seek and qualify for remedies for such conditions.

      (3) In recognition that the goals and objectives of this Workers’ Compensation Law are intended to benefit all citizens, it is declared that the provisions of this law shall be interpreted in an impartial and balanced manner. [1981 c.535 §29 (enacted in lieu of 656.004); 1995 c.332 §4; amendments by 1995 c.332 §4a repealed by 1999 c.6 §1; amendments by 1999 c.6 §3 repealed by 2001 c.865 §23; 2015 c.521 §1]

 

      656.016 [1965 c.285 §5; 1967 c.341 §3; repealed by 1975 c.556 §20 (656.017 enacted in lieu of 656.016)]

 

COVERAGE

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 90 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: Errand v. Cascade Steel Rolling Mills, Inc.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Errand v. Cascade Steel Rolling Mills, Inc. (1995) or · cites it 18× “The context includes the policy statement in the Workers' Compensation Law, codified at ORS 656.012. ORS 656.012 suggests that the exclusivity provision should apply to all injuries that arise in the course and scope of employment.”
Cutright v. Weyerhaeuser Co. (1985) or · cites it 8× “The stated policy of the legislature is set out in ORS 656.012 and includes a declaration of the objectives of the Workers' Compensation Law.”
Booth v. Tektronix, Inc. (1991) or · cites it 12× “See generally ORS 656.012. Policy trade-offs were made in this streamlining effort, and it is not for this court to re-weigh competing policies.”
Providence Health System v. Walker (2012) orctapp · cites it 5× “ORS 656.012 is such a statement of statutory policy.”
Fred Meyer, Inc. v. Hayes (1997) or · cites it 4× “[1] See ORS 656.012(1) (Legislative Assembly finds that "those injuries that bear a sufficient relationship to employment * * * merit incorporation of their costs into the stream of commerce").”
Koskela v. Willamette Industries, Inc. (2000) or · cites it 3× “See ORS 656.012(2)(a) (Workers’ Compensation Law to provide adequate and reasonable income benefits to injured workers and dependents).”
Saif Corp. v. Allen (1994) or · cites it 3× “012(2) provides, in part: "In consequence of these findings, the objectives of the Workers' Compensation Law are declared to be as follows: "(a) To provide, regardless of fault, sure, prompt and complete medical treatment for injured workers and fair, adequate and reasonable…”
Hewitt v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp. (1982) or · cites it 2× “" ORS 656.012(2)(a). Extension of benefits in this case advances the purpose of the legislation and comports with the overall statutory scheme.”
McGarrah v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp. (1983) or · cites it 2× “" [7] ORS 656.012(2) provides in pertinent part that: "* * * the objectives of the Workers' Compensation Law are declared to be as follows: (a) To provide, regardless of fault, sure, prompt and complete medical treatment for injured workers and fair, adequate and reasonable…”
Tee v. Albertsons, Inc. (1992) or · cites it 4× “" ORS 656.012(2)(c). There are two flaws in that argument.”
Mershon v. Oregonian Publishing (1989) orctapp · cites it 4× “, ORS 656.012; ORS 656.283(7); see also Price v.”
Dethlefs v. Hyster Co. (1983) or · cites it 2× “The general policy of the legislature as expressed in ORS 656.012 9 may be summarized as requiring industry to bear the costs of injury or disease to workers, just as industry must do with respect to damage to machinery, and to avoid “common law” litigation *310 by granting to…”
Show all 90 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.012(1) — 2 cases
Fred Meyer, Inc. v. Hayes (1997) or “[1] See ORS 656.012(1) (Legislative Assembly finds that "those injuries that bear a sufficient relationship to employment * * * merit incorporation of their costs into the stream of commerce").”
Palmer v. Bi-Mart Company (1988) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.012(1)(a) — 1 case
Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. v. Frazer (2012) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.012(1)(b) — 1 case
Errand v. Cascade Steel Rolling Mills, Inc. (1995) or “The context includes the policy statement in the Workers' Compensation Law, codified at ORS 656.012. ORS 656.012 suggests that the exclusivity provision should apply to all injuries that arise in the course and scope of employment.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.012(1)(c) — 6 cases
Fred Meyer, Inc. v. Hayes (1997) or “[1] See ORS 656.012(1) (Legislative Assembly finds that "those injuries that bear a sufficient relationship to employment * * * merit incorporation of their costs into the stream of commerce").”
Iliaifar v. SAIF Corp. (1999) orctapp
Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. v. Frazer (2012) orctapp
Teitelman v. SAIF (2025) or
SAIF Corp. v. Fortson (1998) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.012(2) — 22 cases
Cutright v. Weyerhaeuser Co. (1985) or “The stated policy of the legislature is set out in ORS 656.012 and includes a declaration of the objectives of the Workers' Compensation Law.”
McGarrah v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp. (1983) or “" [7] ORS 656.012(2) provides in pertinent part that: "* * * the objectives of the Workers' Compensation Law are declared to be as follows: (a) To provide, regardless of fault, sure, prompt and complete medical treatment for injured workers and fair, adequate and reasonable…”
Saif Corp. v. Allen (1994) or “012(2) provides, in part: "In consequence of these findings, the objectives of the Workers' Compensation Law are declared to be as follows: "(a) To provide, regardless of fault, sure, prompt and complete medical treatment for injured workers and fair, adequate and reasonable…”
Young v. Mobil Oil Corp. (1987) orctapp
Crosby v. SAIF Corp. (1985) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.012(2)(a) — 13 cases
Hewitt v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp. (1982) or “" ORS 656.012(2)(a). Extension of benefits in this case advances the purpose of the legislation and comports with the overall statutory scheme.”
Errand v. Cascade Steel Rolling Mills, Inc. (1995) or “The context includes the policy statement in the Workers' Compensation Law, codified at ORS 656.012. ORS 656.012 suggests that the exclusivity provision should apply to all injuries that arise in the course and scope of employment.”
Koskela v. Willamette Industries, Inc. (2000) or “See ORS 656.012(2)(a) (Workers’ Compensation Law to provide adequate and reasonable income benefits to injured workers and dependents).”
Saif Corp. v. Allen (1994) or “012(2) provides, in part: "In consequence of these findings, the objectives of the Workers' Compensation Law are declared to be as follows: "(a) To provide, regardless of fault, sure, prompt and complete medical treatment for injured workers and fair, adequate and reasonable…”
Trujillo v. Pacific Safety Supply (2002) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.012(2)(b) — 20 cases
Booth v. Tektronix, Inc. (1991) or “See generally ORS 656.012. Policy trade-offs were made in this streamlining effort, and it is not for this court to re-weigh competing policies.”
Errand v. Cascade Steel Rolling Mills, Inc. (1995) or “The context includes the policy statement in the Workers' Compensation Law, codified at ORS 656.012. ORS 656.012 suggests that the exclusivity provision should apply to all injuries that arise in the course and scope of employment.”
Taylor v. SAIF Corp. (In re Taylor) (2018) orctapp
Providence Health System v. Walker (2012) orctapp “ORS 656.012 is such a statement of statutory policy.”
Palmer v. Bi-Mart Company (1988) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.012(2)(c) — 12 cases
Errand v. Cascade Steel Rolling Mills, Inc. (1995) or “The context includes the policy statement in the Workers' Compensation Law, codified at ORS 656.012. ORS 656.012 suggests that the exclusivity provision should apply to all injuries that arise in the course and scope of employment.”
Tee v. Albertsons, Inc. (1992) or “" ORS 656.012(2)(c). There are two flaws in that argument.”
Providence Health System v. Walker (2012) orctapp “ORS 656.012 is such a statement of statutory policy.”
Koskela v. Willamette Industries, Inc. (2000) or “See ORS 656.012(2)(a) (Workers’ Compensation Law to provide adequate and reasonable income benefits to injured workers and dependents).”
Armstrong v. Rogue Federal Credit Union (1998) or
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.012(2)(d) — 2 cases
Errand v. Cascade Steel Rolling Mills, Inc. (1995) or “The context includes the policy statement in the Workers' Compensation Law, codified at ORS 656.012. ORS 656.012 suggests that the exclusivity provision should apply to all injuries that arise in the course and scope of employment.”
Young v. Mobil Oil Corp. (1987) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.012(2)(e) — 3 cases
City of Eugene v. McCann (2012) orctapp
Kimmie Jackson v. City of Yachats (2025) ord
Saif Corp. v. Glubrecht (1998) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.012(3) — 3 cases
Teitelman v. SAIF (2025) or
Beneficiaries of the Estate of Strametz v. Spectrum Motorwerks, Inc. (1995) orctapp
Teitelman v. SAIF (2025) or
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.012(b) — 2 cases
Errand v. Cascade Steel Rolling Mills, Inc. (1995) or “The context includes the policy statement in the Workers' Compensation Law, codified at ORS 656.012. ORS 656.012 suggests that the exclusivity provision should apply to all injuries that arise in the course and scope of employment.”
Wantowski v. Crown Cork & Seal (2001) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.012(l)(b) — 2 cases
Errand v. Cascade Steel Rolling Mills, Inc. (1995) or “The context includes the policy statement in the Workers' Compensation Law, codified at ORS 656.012. ORS 656.012 suggests that the exclusivity provision should apply to all injuries that arise in the course and scope of employment.”
City of Salem v. Salisbury (2000) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.012(l)(c) — 4 cases
Fred Meyer, Inc. v. Hayes (1997) or “[1] See ORS 656.012(1) (Legislative Assembly finds that "those injuries that bear a sufficient relationship to employment * * * merit incorporation of their costs into the stream of commerce").”
Robinson v. Nabisco, Inc. (2000) or
Schutz v. SAIF Corp. (2012) orctapp
Saif Corp. v. Glubrecht (1998) orctapp
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.