656.052
Prohibition against employment without coverage; proposed order declaring
noncomplying employer; effect of failure to comply. (1) No person shall engage as a
subject employer unless and until the person has provided coverage pursuant to
ORS 656.017 for subject workers the person employs.
(2) Whenever the
Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services has reason to
believe that any person has violated subsection (1) of this section, the
director shall serve upon the person a proposed order declaring the person to
be a noncomplying employer and containing the amount, if any, of civil penalty
to be assessed pursuant to ORS 656.735 (1).
(3) If any person
fails to comply with ORS 656.017 after an order declaring the person to be a
noncomplying employer has become final by operation of law or on appeal, the
circuit court of the county in which the person resides or in which the person
employs workers shall, upon the commencement of a suit by the director for that
purpose, permanently enjoin the person from employing subject workers without
complying with ORS 656.017. Upon the filing of such a suit, the court shall set
a day for hearing and shall cause notice thereof to be served upon the
noncomplying employer. The hearing shall be not less than five days from the
service of the notice.
(4) The court may
award reasonable attorney fees to the director if the director prevails in an
action under subsection (3) of this section. The court may award reasonable
attorney fees to a defendant who prevails in an action under subsection (3) of
this section if the court determines that the director had no objectively
reasonable basis for asserting the claim or no reasonable basis for appealing
an adverse decision of the trial court. [Amended by 1957 c.574 §2; 1965 c.285 §14;
1967 c.341 §4; 1973 c.447 §1; 1987 c.234 §1; 1990 c.2 §5; 1995 c.332 §6b; 1995
c.696 §43]
Notes of Decisions
Oregon Farm Bureau v. Thompson, 384 P.2d 182 (Or. 1963).
· cites it 2× “312 enables a workman who is engaged in a hazardous occupation to receive compensation benefits and at the same time maintain an action for damages against an employer who (1) operates in violation of ORS 656.052 or (2) is in default. In the event that a workman of that kind of…”
Dep't of Consum. & Bus. Servs. v. Zurich Am., 268 P.3d 671 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 5× “The Department of Consumer and Business Services (DCBS) petitioned for judicial review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board that rejected a proposed DCBS order declaring On-Time Delivery, LLC (On-Time), to be a noncomplying employer under ORS 656.052 and that awarded…”
Astleford v. SAIF Corp., 874 P.2d 1329 (Or. 1994).
“In December 1988, the Department of Insurance and Finance 1 (DIF) entered a proposed order, pursuant to ORS 656.052(2), declaring that claimant’s employer, Ronald Astleford (Employer), was a noncomplying employer.”
Martelli v. RA Chambers & Assocs., 800 P.2d 766 (Or. 1990).
“ORS 656.052. In return for the right to compensation, the subject worker and his beneficiaries are deprived of the legal remedies for injuries which they might otherwise have against his employer.”
Bell v. Hartman, 615 P.2d 314 (Or. 1980).
“ORS 656.052. In return for the right to compensation, the subject worker and his beneficiaries are deprived of the legal remedies for injuries which they might otherwise have against his employer.”
Astleford v. Saif Corp., 858 P.2d 877 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
“On December 22,1988, DIF entered a proposed order declaring that employer was a noncomplying employer, ORS 656.052(2), and notified employer that, if he disagreed, he could request a hearing within 20 days after receipt of the order.”
Associated Reforestation Contractors, Inc. v. State Workers' Comp. Bd., 650 P.2d 1068 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).
“In its cross-appeal, plaintiff argues that in addition to the judgment’s declaration of Hoedads’ being a subject employer, the judgment should have included an order directing the defendant state agencies to discharge their duties under ORS 656.052. That statute provides in…”
Clark v. Linn, 779 P.2d 203 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).
“ORS 656.052(2). Employer appealed the Department’s order by a letter dated April 25,1985, contesting the determination that she was noncomplying and asserting that the claim was not compensable.”
E. W. Eldridge, Inc. v. Becker, 700 P.2d 301 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).
“…of noncompliance under the Workers’ Compensation Law, which would subject them to sanctions, such as a penalty. See ORS 656.052, 656.054.”
Nelander v. Dep't of Ins. & Fin., 829 P.2d 1048 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 3× “Employer argues that, despite the fact that it had no workers’ compensation insurance coverage in Oregon, it is not a noncomplying employer, because it had no employees in Oregon and, therefore, under ORS 656.052, it is not a subject employer.”
Blain v. Owen, 807 P.2d 313 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
“ORS 656.052(2). The department received a letter from employer on June 9,1986, that reads: “In regard to injury of [claimant].”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.052(2) — 5 cases
Astleford v. SAIF Corp., 874 P.2d 1329 (Or. 1994).
“In December 1988, the Department of Insurance and Finance 1 (DIF) entered a proposed order, pursuant to ORS 656.052(2), declaring that claimant’s employer, Ronald Astleford (Employer), was a noncomplying employer.”
Astleford v. Saif Corp., 858 P.2d 877 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
“On December 22,1988, DIF entered a proposed order declaring that employer was a noncomplying employer, ORS 656.052(2), and notified employer that, if he disagreed, he could request a hearing within 20 days after receipt of the order.”
Clark v. Linn, 779 P.2d 203 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).
“ORS 656.052(2). Employer appealed the Department’s order by a letter dated April 25,1985, contesting the determination that she was noncomplying and asserting that the claim was not compensable.”
Blain v. Owen, 807 P.2d 313 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
“ORS 656.052(2). The department received a letter from employer on June 9,1986, that reads: “In regard to injury of [claimant].”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.052(3) — 1 case
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.