656.206
Permanent total disability.
(1) As used in this section:
(a) “Essential
functions” means the primary tasks associated with the job.
(b) “Materially
improved medically” means an actual change for the better in the worker’s
medical condition that is supported by objective findings.
(c) “Materially
improved vocationally” means an actual change for the better in the:
(A) Worker’s
vocational capability; or
(B) Likelihood
that the worker can return to work in a gainful and suitable occupation.
(d) “Permanent
total disability” means, notwithstanding ORS 656.225, the loss, including
preexisting disability, of use or function of any portion of the body which
permanently incapacitates the worker from regularly performing work at a
gainful and suitable occupation.
(e) “Regularly
performing work” means the ability of the worker to discharge the essential
functions of the job.
(f) “Suitable
occupation” means one that the worker has the ability and the training or
experience to perform, or an occupation that the worker is able to perform
after rehabilitation.
(g) “Wages” means
wages as determined under ORS 656.210.
(2) If permanent
total disability results from a worker’s injury, the worker shall receive
during the period of that disability compensation benefits equal to 66-2/3
percent of wages, no more than 133 percent of the average weekly wage or no
less than 33 percent of the average weekly wage.
(3) A worker has
the burden of proving permanent total disability status and must establish that
the worker is willing to seek regular gainful employment and that the worker
has made reasonable efforts to obtain such employment.
(4) When
requested by the Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services,
a worker who receives permanent total disability benefits shall file on a form
provided by the director, a sworn statement of the worker’s gross annual income
for the preceding year along with such other information as the director
considers necessary to determine whether the worker regularly performs work at
a gainful and suitable occupation.
(5) Each insurer
shall reexamine periodically each permanent total disability claim for which
the insurer has current payment responsibility to determine whether the worker
has materially improved, either medically or vocationally, and is no longer
permanently incapacitated from regularly performing work at a gainful and
suitable occupation. Reexamination must be conducted every two years or at such
other more frequent interval as the director may prescribe. Reexamination must
include such medical examinations, vocational evaluations, reports and other
records as the insurer considers necessary or the director may require.
(6)(a) If a
worker receiving permanent total disability benefits is found to be materially
improved and capable of regularly performing work at a gainful and suitable
occupation, the insurer or self-insured employer shall issue a notice of
closure pursuant to ORS 656.268. Permanent total disability benefits shall be
paid through the date of the notice of closure. Notwithstanding ORS 656.268
(5), if a worker objects to a notice of closure issued under this subsection,
the worker shall request a hearing. If the worker requests a hearing on the
notice of closure before the Hearings Division of the Workers’ Compensation
Board within 30 days of the date of the notice of closure, the insurer or
self-insured employer shall continue payment of permanent total disability
benefits until an order of the Hearings Division or a subsequent order affirms
the notice of closure or until another order that terminates the worker’s
benefits becomes final. If the worker requests a hearing on the notice of
closure more than 30 days from the date of the notice of closure but before the
60-day period for requesting a hearing expires, the insurer or self-insured
employer shall resume paying permanent total disability benefits from the date
the hearing is requested and shall continue payment of benefits until an order
of the Hearings Division or a subsequent order affirms the notice of closure or
until another order that terminates the worker’s benefits becomes final. If the
notice of closure is upheld by the Hearings Division, the insurer or
self-insured employer must be reimbursed from the Workers’ Benefit Fund for the
amount of permanent total disability benefits paid after the date of the notice
of closure issued under this subsection.
(b) An insurer or
self-insured employer must establish that the condition of a worker who is
receiving permanent total disability benefits has materially improved by a
preponderance of the evidence presented at hearing.
(c) Medical
examinations or vocational evaluations used to support the issuance of a notice
of closure under this subsection must include at least one report in which the
author personally observed the worker.
(d)
Notwithstanding section 54 (3), chapter 2, Oregon Laws 1990, the Hearings
Division of the Workers’ Compensation Board may request the director to order a
medical arbiter examination of an injured worker who has requested a hearing
under this subsection.
(7) A worker who
has had permanent total disability benefits terminated under this section by an
order that has become final is eligible for vocational assistance pursuant to
ORS 656.340. Notwithstanding ORS 656.268 (10), if a worker has enrolled in and is
actively engaged in a training program, when vocational assistance provided
under this section ends or the worker ceases to be enrolled and actively
engaged in the training program, the insurer or the self-insured employer shall
determine the extent of disability pursuant to ORS 656.214.
(8) A worker
receiving permanent total disability benefits is required, if requested by the
director, the insurer or the self-insured employer, to submit to a vocational
evaluation at a time reasonably convenient to the worker as may be provided by
the rules of the director. No more than three evaluations may be requested
except after notification to and authorization by the director. If the worker
refuses to submit to or obstructs a vocational evaluation, the rights of the
worker to compensation must be suspended with the consent of the director until
the evaluation has taken place, and no compensation is payable for the period
during which the worker refused to submit to or obstructed the evaluation. The
insurer or self-insured employer shall pay the costs of the evaluation and
related services that are reasonably necessary to allow the worker to attend
the evaluation requested under this subsection. As used in this subsection, “related
services” includes, but is not limited to, wages, child care, travel, meals and
lodging.
(9)
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, if a worker receiving
permanent total disability incurs a new compensable injury, the worker’s
entitlement to compensation for the new injury shall be limited to medical
benefits pursuant to ORS 656.245 and permanent partial disability benefits for
impairment, as determined in the manner set forth in ORS 656.214 (2).
(10) When a
worker eligible for benefits under this section returns to work, if the
combined total of the worker’s post-injury wages plus permanent total
disability benefit exceeds the worker’s wage at the time of injury, the worker’s
permanent total disability benefit must be reduced by the amount the worker’s
wages plus statutory permanent total disability benefit exceeds the worker’s
wage at injury.
(11) For purposes
of this section:
(a) A gainful
occupation for workers with a date of injury prior to January 1, 2006, who
were:
(A) Employed
continuously for 52 weeks prior to the injury, is an occupation that provides
weekly wages that are the lesser of the most recent federal poverty guidelines
for a family of three that are applicable to Oregon residents and that are
published annually in the Federal Register by the United States Department of
Health and Human Services or 66-2/3 percent of the worker’s average weekly
wages from all employment for the 52 weeks prior to the date of injury.
(B) Not employed
continuously for the 52 weeks prior to the date of injury, but who were
employed for at least four weeks prior to the date of injury, is an occupation
that provides weekly wages that are the lesser of the most recent federal
poverty guidelines for a family of three that are applicable to Oregon
residents and that are published annually in the Federal Register by the United
States Department of Health and Human Services or 66-2/3 percent of the worker’s
average weekly wage from all employment for the 52 weeks prior to the date of
injury based on weeks of actual employment, excluding any extended periods of
unemployment.
(C) Employed for
less than four weeks prior to the date of injury with no other employment
during the 52 weeks prior to the date of injury, is an occupation that provides
weekly wages that are the lesser of the most recent federal poverty guidelines
for a family of three that are applicable to Oregon residents and that are
published annually in the Federal Register by the United States Department of
Health and Human Services or 66-2/3 percent of the average weekly wages
intended by the parties at the time of initial hire.
(b) A gainful
occupation for workers with a date of injury on or after January 1, 2006, who
were:
(A) Employed
continuously for 52 weeks prior to the injury, is an occupation that provides
weekly wages that are the lesser of the most recent federal poverty guidelines
for a family of three that are applicable to Oregon residents and that are
published annually in the Federal Register by the United States Department of
Health and Human Services or 66-2/3 percent of the worker’s average weekly
wages from all employment for the 52 weeks prior to the date of injury adjusted
by the percentage of change in the applicable federal poverty guidelines for a
family of three from the date of injury to the date of evaluation of the extent
of the worker’s disability.
(B) Not employed
continuously for the 52 weeks prior to the date of injury, but who were
employed for at least four weeks prior to the date of injury, is an occupation
that provides weekly wages that are the lesser of the most recent federal
poverty guidelines for a family of three that are applicable to Oregon
residents and that are published annually in the Federal Register by the United
States Department of Health and Human Services or 66-2/3 percent of the worker’s
average weekly wage from all employment for the 52 weeks prior to the date of
injury based on weeks of actual employment, excluding any extended periods of
unemployment and as adjusted by the percentage of change in the applicable
federal poverty guidelines for a family of three from the date of injury to the
date of evaluation of the extent of the worker’s disability.
(C) Employed for
less than four weeks prior to the date of injury with no other employment
during the 52 weeks prior to the date of injury, is an occupation that provides
weekly wages that are the lesser of the most recent federal poverty guidelines
for a family of three that are applicable to Oregon residents and that are
published annually in the Federal Register by the United States Department of
Health and Human Services or 66-2/3 percent of the average weekly wages
intended by the parties at the time of initial hire adjusted by the percentage
of change in the applicable federal poverty guidelines for a family of three
from the date of injury to the date of evaluation of the extent of the worker’s
disability. [Amended by 1953 c.670 §4; 1955 c.553 §1; 1957 c.452 §1; 1959 c.517
§1; 1965 c.285 §22a; 1969 c.500 §2; 1973 c.614 §2; 1974 c.41 §5; 1975 c.506 §1;
1977 c.430 §1; 1981 c.874 §12; 1983 c.816 §3; 1995 c.332 §14; 1999 c.313 §13;
1999 c.927 §3; 2003 c.657 §§5,6; 2005 c.461 §§1,2; 2007 c.274 §3; 2011 c.99 §2;
2017 c.70 §1]
656.207 [1959 c.589 §2; repealed by 1965
c.285 §95]
Notes of Decisions
Cutright v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 702 P.2d 403 (Or. 1985).
· cites it 31× “210(1) to mean the loss, including preexisting disability, of use or function of any scheduled or unscheduled portion of the body which incapacitates the worker from regularly performing work at a gainful and suitable occupation. Total disability describes the extent of…”
Tee v. Albertsons, Inc., 842 P.2d 374 (Or. 1992).
· cites it 46× “Claimant next argues that the court should interpret the term "gainful" (which is not defined in ORS 656.206 or elsewhere) as the equivalent of "suitable" as defined in ORS 656.”
Elsea v. Liberty Mut. Ins., 371 P.3d 1279 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 10× ““Permanent total disability” is defined in ORS 656.206(1)(d) as “the loss, including preexisting disability, of use or function of any scheduled or unscheduled portion of the body which permanently incapacitates the worker from regularly performing work at a gainful and suitable…”
Koskela v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 978 P.2d 1018 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 16× “" ORS 656.206(1)(a). "Suitable occupation" refers to those occupations that exist in a theoretically normal labor market, within a reasonable geographic distance, for which a worker has the training or experience and the realistic ability to perform the job duties, with or…”
Comp. of Harris v. SAIF Corp., 642 P.2d 1147 (Or. 1982).
· cites it 9× “Notwithstanding the medical reports which continued to state that claimant’s disability remained essentially unchanged since his accident, the State Accident Insurance Fund (SAIF), his insurer, requested a reevaluation and reduction in his award pursuant to ORS 656.206. *687…”
Koskela v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 15 P.3d 548 (Or. 2000).
· cites it 6× “1 An injured worker receives “permanent total disability” (PTD) benefits if the worker is permanently incapacitated “from regularly performing work at a gainful and suitable occupation.”
Gettman v. State Accident Ins. Fund, 616 P.2d 473 (Or. 1980).
· cites it 6× “" The claimant argues that the Board reduced his award based on an erroneous interpretation of ORS 656.206(1)(a) regarding a "suitable occupation.”
Wilson v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 567 P.2d 567 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 4× “” Contrary to the suggestion of the State Accident Insurance Fund in its amicus brief, that statute did not codify the odd-lot doctrine. The odd-lot doctrine is, in fact, merely an application of another legislative act, ORS 656.”
SAIF Corp. v. Stephen, 774 P.2d 1103 (Or. 1989).
· cites it 5× “” Because such a claimant suffers lost wages as a result of a compensable injury, the term “worker” as used in ORS 656.206 includes such a claimant. The inquiry concerning whether such a claimant is entitled to PTD benefits, however, does not end here.”
Barrett v. D & H DRYWALL, 709 P.2d 1083 (Or. 1985).
· cites it 3× “The definition of permanent total disability in ORS 656.206(1) (a) 4 that specifically includes consideration of preexisting disabilities does not justify the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that permanent partial disability determinations may not include consideration of…”
Gwynn v. State Accident Ins. Fund Corp., 745 P.2d 775 (Or. 1987).
· cites it 2× “214; and (4) permanent total disability, ORS 656.206. Any disability can only be classified at any one time under one of those headings because each is exclusive of any other.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.206(1) — 31 cases
Cutright v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 702 P.2d 403 (Or. 1985).
“210(1) to mean the loss, including preexisting disability, of use or function of any scheduled or unscheduled portion of the body which incapacitates the worker from regularly performing work at a gainful and suitable occupation. Total disability describes the extent of…”
Tee v. Albertsons, Inc., 842 P.2d 374 (Or. 1992).
“Claimant next argues that the court should interpret the term "gainful" (which is not defined in ORS 656.206 or elsewhere) as the equivalent of "suitable" as defined in ORS 656.”
Barrett v. D & H DRYWALL, 709 P.2d 1083 (Or. 1985).
“The definition of permanent total disability in ORS 656.206(1) (a) 4 that specifically includes consideration of preexisting disabilities does not justify the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that permanent partial disability determinations may not include consideration of…”
Wilson v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 567 P.2d 567 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).
“” Contrary to the suggestion of the State Accident Insurance Fund in its amicus brief, that statute did not codify the odd-lot doctrine. The odd-lot doctrine is, in fact, merely an application of another legislative act, ORS 656.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.206(1)(a) — 29 cases
Tee v. Albertsons, Inc., 842 P.2d 374 (Or. 1992).
“Claimant next argues that the court should interpret the term "gainful" (which is not defined in ORS 656.206 or elsewhere) as the equivalent of "suitable" as defined in ORS 656.”
Cutright v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 702 P.2d 403 (Or. 1985).
“210(1) to mean the loss, including preexisting disability, of use or function of any scheduled or unscheduled portion of the body which incapacitates the worker from regularly performing work at a gainful and suitable occupation. Total disability describes the extent of…”
Gettman v. State Accident Ins. Fund, 616 P.2d 473 (Or. 1980).
“" The claimant argues that the Board reduced his award based on an erroneous interpretation of ORS 656.206(1)(a) regarding a "suitable occupation.”
Comp. of Harris v. SAIF Corp., 642 P.2d 1147 (Or. 1982).
“Notwithstanding the medical reports which continued to state that claimant’s disability remained essentially unchanged since his accident, the State Accident Insurance Fund (SAIF), his insurer, requested a reevaluation and reduction in his award pursuant to ORS 656.206. *687…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.206(1)(d) — 2 cases
Elsea v. Liberty Mut. Ins., 371 P.3d 1279 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
““Permanent total disability” is defined in ORS 656.206(1)(d) as “the loss, including preexisting disability, of use or function of any scheduled or unscheduled portion of the body which permanently incapacitates the worker from regularly performing work at a gainful and suitable…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.206(2) — 16 cases
Cutright v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 702 P.2d 403 (Or. 1985).
“210(1) to mean the loss, including preexisting disability, of use or function of any scheduled or unscheduled portion of the body which incapacitates the worker from regularly performing work at a gainful and suitable occupation. Total disability describes the extent of…”
Wilson v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 567 P.2d 567 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).
“” Contrary to the suggestion of the State Accident Insurance Fund in its amicus brief, that statute did not codify the odd-lot doctrine. The odd-lot doctrine is, in fact, merely an application of another legislative act, ORS 656.”
Koskela v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 15 P.3d 548 (Or. 2000).
“1 An injured worker receives “permanent total disability” (PTD) benefits if the worker is permanently incapacitated “from regularly performing work at a gainful and suitable occupation.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.206(2)(a) — 1 case
Koskela v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 978 P.2d 1018 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
“" ORS 656.206(1)(a). "Suitable occupation" refers to those occupations that exist in a theoretically normal labor market, within a reasonable geographic distance, for which a worker has the training or experience and the realistic ability to perform the job duties, with or…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.206(2)(b) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.206(3) — 60 cases
Cutright v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 702 P.2d 403 (Or. 1985).
“210(1) to mean the loss, including preexisting disability, of use or function of any scheduled or unscheduled portion of the body which incapacitates the worker from regularly performing work at a gainful and suitable occupation. Total disability describes the extent of…”
Elsea v. Liberty Mut. Ins., 371 P.3d 1279 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
““Permanent total disability” is defined in ORS 656.206(1)(d) as “the loss, including preexisting disability, of use or function of any scheduled or unscheduled portion of the body which permanently incapacitates the worker from regularly performing work at a gainful and suitable…”
Koskela v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 978 P.2d 1018 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
“" ORS 656.206(1)(a). "Suitable occupation" refers to those occupations that exist in a theoretically normal labor market, within a reasonable geographic distance, for which a worker has the training or experience and the realistic ability to perform the job duties, with or…”
Koskela v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 15 P.3d 548 (Or. 2000).
“1 An injured worker receives “permanent total disability” (PTD) benefits if the worker is permanently incapacitated “from regularly performing work at a gainful and suitable occupation.”
SAIF Corp. v. Stephen, 774 P.2d 1103 (Or. 1989).
“” Because such a claimant suffers lost wages as a result of a compensable injury, the term “worker” as used in ORS 656.206 includes such a claimant. The inquiry concerning whether such a claimant is entitled to PTD benefits, however, does not end here.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.206(4) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.206(5) — 16 cases
Comp. of Harris v. SAIF Corp., 642 P.2d 1147 (Or. 1982).
“Notwithstanding the medical reports which continued to state that claimant’s disability remained essentially unchanged since his accident, the State Accident Insurance Fund (SAIF), his insurer, requested a reevaluation and reduction in his award pursuant to ORS 656.206. *687…”
Gettman v. State Accident Ins. Fund, 616 P.2d 473 (Or. 1980).
“" The claimant argues that the Board reduced his award based on an erroneous interpretation of ORS 656.206(1)(a) regarding a "suitable occupation.”
Koskela v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 978 P.2d 1018 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
“" ORS 656.206(1)(a). "Suitable occupation" refers to those occupations that exist in a theoretically normal labor market, within a reasonable geographic distance, for which a worker has the training or experience and the realistic ability to perform the job duties, with or…”
Koskela v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 15 P.3d 548 (Or. 2000).
“1 An injured worker receives “permanent total disability” (PTD) benefits if the worker is permanently incapacitated “from regularly performing work at a gainful and suitable occupation.”
Tee v. Albertsons, Inc., 842 P.2d 374 (Or. 1992).
“Claimant next argues that the court should interpret the term "gainful" (which is not defined in ORS 656.206 or elsewhere) as the equivalent of "suitable" as defined in ORS 656.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.206(l)(a) — 38 cases
Tee v. Albertsons, Inc., 842 P.2d 374 (Or. 1992).
“Claimant next argues that the court should interpret the term "gainful" (which is not defined in ORS 656.206 or elsewhere) as the equivalent of "suitable" as defined in ORS 656.”
Wilson v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 567 P.2d 567 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).
“” Contrary to the suggestion of the State Accident Insurance Fund in its amicus brief, that statute did not codify the odd-lot doctrine. The odd-lot doctrine is, in fact, merely an application of another legislative act, ORS 656.”
Cutright v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 702 P.2d 403 (Or. 1985).
“210(1) to mean the loss, including preexisting disability, of use or function of any scheduled or unscheduled portion of the body which incapacitates the worker from regularly performing work at a gainful and suitable occupation. Total disability describes the extent of…”
Koskela v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 15 P.3d 548 (Or. 2000).
“1 An injured worker receives “permanent total disability” (PTD) benefits if the worker is permanently incapacitated “from regularly performing work at a gainful and suitable occupation.”
Comp. of Harris v. SAIF Corp., 642 P.2d 1147 (Or. 1982).
“Notwithstanding the medical reports which continued to state that claimant’s disability remained essentially unchanged since his accident, the State Accident Insurance Fund (SAIF), his insurer, requested a reevaluation and reduction in his award pursuant to ORS 656.206. *687…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.206(l)(b) — 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.