Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.214 (2026)

Permanent partial disability

✓ current as of May 2026

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

656.214 Permanent partial disability. (1) As used in this section:

(a) “Impairment” means the loss of use or function of a body part or system due to the compensable industrial injury or occupational disease determined in accordance with the standards provided under ORS 656.726, expressed as a percentage of the whole person.

(b) “Loss” includes permanent and complete or partial loss of use.

(A) Permanent impairment resulting from the compensable industrial injury or occupational disease; or

(B) Permanent impairment and work disability resulting from the compensable industrial injury or occupational disease.

(d) “Regular work” means the job the worker held at injury.

(e) “Work disability” means impairment modified by age, education and adaptability to perform a given job.

(2) When permanent partial disability results from a compensable injury or occupational disease, benefits shall be awarded as follows:

(a) If the worker has been released to regular work by the attending physician or nurse practitioner authorized to provide compensable medical services under ORS 656.245 or has returned to regular work at the job held at the time of injury, the award shall be for impairment only. Impairment shall be determined in accordance with the standards provided by the Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services pursuant to ORS 656.726 (4). Impairment benefits are determined by multiplying the impairment value times 100 times the average weekly wage as defined by ORS 656.005.

(b) If the worker has not been released to regular work by the attending physician or nurse practitioner authorized to provide compensable medical services under ORS 656.245 or has not returned to regular work at the job held at the time of injury, the award shall be for impairment and work disability. Work disability shall be determined in accordance with the standards provided by the director pursuant to ORS 656.726 (4). Impairment shall be determined as provided in paragraph (a) of this subsection. Work disability benefits shall be determined by multiplying the impairment value, as modified by the factors of age, education and adaptability to perform a given job, times 150 times the worker’s weekly wage for the job at injury as calculated under ORS 656.210 (2). The factor for the worker’s weekly wage used for the determination of the work disability may be no more than 133 percent or no less than 50 percent of the average weekly wage as defined in ORS 656.005.

(3) Impairment benefits awarded under subsection (2)(a) of this section shall be expressed as a percentage of the whole person. Impairment benefits for the following body parts may not exceed:

(a) For the loss of one arm at or above the elbow joint, 60 percent.

(b) For the loss of one forearm at or above the wrist joint, or the loss of one hand, 47 percent.

(d) For the loss of one foot, 42 percent.

(e) For the loss of a great toe, six percent; for loss of any other toe, one percent.

(f) For partial or complete loss of hearing in one ear, that proportion of 19 percent which the loss bears to normal monaural hearing.

(g) For partial or complete loss of hearing in both ears, that proportion of 60 percent which the combined binaural hearing loss bears to normal combined binaural hearing. For the purpose of this paragraph, combined binaural hearing loss shall be calculated by taking seven times the hearing loss in the less damaged ear plus the hearing loss in the more damaged ear and dividing that amount by eight. In the case of individuals with compensable hearing loss involving both ears, either the method of calculation for monaural hearing loss or that for combined binaural hearing loss shall be used, depending upon which allows the greater award of impairment.

(h) For partial or complete loss of vision of one eye, that proportion of 31 percent which the loss of monocular vision bears to normal monocular vision. For the purposes of this paragraph, the term “normal monocular vision” shall be considered as Snellen 20/20 for distance and Snellen 14/14 for near vision with full sensory field.

(i) For partial loss of vision in both eyes, that proportion of 94 percent which the combined binocular visual loss bears to normal combined binocular vision. In all cases of partial loss of sight, the percentage of said loss shall be measured with maximum correction. For the purpose of this paragraph, combined binocular visual loss shall be calculated by taking three times the visual loss in the less damaged eye plus the visual loss in the more damaged eye and dividing that amount by four. In the case of individuals with compensable visual loss involving both eyes, either the method of calculation for monocular visual loss or that for combined binocular visual loss shall be used, depending upon which allows the greater award of impairment.

(j) For the loss of a thumb, 15 percent.

(k) For the loss of a first finger, eight percent; of a second finger, seven percent; of a third finger, three percent; of a fourth finger, two percent.

(4) The loss of one phalange of a thumb, including the adjacent epiphyseal region of the proximal phalange, is considered equal to the loss of one-half of a thumb. The loss of one phalange of a finger, including the adjacent epiphyseal region of the middle phalange, is considered equal to the loss of one-half of a finger. The loss of two phalanges of a finger, including the adjacent epiphyseal region of the proximal phalange of a finger, is considered equal to the loss of 75 percent of a finger. The loss of more than one phalange of a thumb, excluding the epiphyseal region of the proximal phalange, is considered equal to the loss of an entire thumb. The loss of more than two phalanges of a finger, excluding the epiphyseal region of the proximal phalange of a finger, is considered equal to the loss of an entire finger. A proportionate loss of use may be allowed for an uninjured finger or thumb where there has been a loss of effective opposition.

(5) A proportionate loss of the hand may be allowed where impairment extends to more than one digit, in lieu of ratings on the individual digits.

(6) All permanent disability contemplates future waxing and waning of symptoms of the condition. The results of waxing and waning of symptoms may include, but are not limited to, loss of earning capacity, periods of temporary total or temporary partial disability, or inpatient hospitalization. [Amended by 1953 c.669 §4; 1955 c.716 §1; 1957 c.449 §1; 1965 c.285 §22d; 1967 c.529 §1; 1971 c.178 §1; 1977 c.557 §1; 1979 c.839 §27; 1981 c.535 §27; 1985 c.506 §3; 1987 c.884 §36; 1990 c.2 §7; 1995 c.332 §17; 1999 c.6 §7; 1999 c.876 §2; 2001 c.865 §6; 2003 c.657 §§1,2; 2005 c.653 §§3,4; 2007 c.274 §1]

656.215 [1987 c.884 §36b; 1990 c.2 §8; repealed by 1991 c.745 §3]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 175 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1957–2026 · leading case: Saif Corp. v. Herron, 836 P.2d 131 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Saif Corp. v. Herron, 836 P.2d 131 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 46× “Employer seeks review of a Workers' Compensation Board order holding that *132 claimant's award of scheduled permanent partial disability (PPD) should be paid at the rate of $305 per degree, pursuant to ORS 656.214(2), as amended by Or.Laws 1990, ch.”

Caren v. Providence Health Sys. Or. (In re Caren), 446 P.3d 67 (Or. 2019). · cites it 32× “ORS 656.214 obligates employers to provide compensation for a worker's permanent impairment, meaning "loss of use or function" that is "due to the compensable industrial injury.”

Schleiss v. SAIF Corp., 317 P.3d 244 (Or. 2013). · cites it 24× “” The second statute, ORS 656.214, which authorizes awards of PPD, provides, in part, that, *641 “(l)(a) ‘Impairment’ means the loss of use or function of a body part or system due to the compensable industrial injury or occupational disease determined in accordance with the…”

Gramada v. SAIF, 532 P.3d 539 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 24× “In that order, the board found that claimant’s workplace injury to her lower back did not cause impairment to claimant and denied claimant an award of permanent partial disability benefits under ORS 656.214. A medical arbiter found loss of use or function to claimant’s low back,…”

Robinette v. SAIF, 511 P.3d 1074 (Or. 2022). · cites it 16× “Held: When calculating permanent partial disability awards, each distinct loss of use or function of a body part is considered separately to determine if it qualifies as “impairment”—that is, “loss of use or function of a body part or system due to the compensable industrial…”

SAIF Corp. v. Walker, 930 P.2d 230 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 27× “If that is true, then it is unnecessary to say that waxing and waning of symptoms is an expected feature of every condition (ORS 656.”

Woodman v. Georgia-Pac. Corp., 614 P.2d 1162 (Or. 1980). · cites it 26× “, Shemel, Workmen's Compensation Awards for Injuries to Specific Members of the Body, 30 Cornell L.”

McDermott v. SAIF Corp., 398 P.3d 964 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 28× “2 SAIF argues that the board correctly concluded that apportionment was appropriate under ORS 656.214 and the administrative rules for rating disability in OAR chapter 436, division 35.”

Johnson v. SAIF, 507 P.3d 1277 (Or. 2022). · cites it 17× “Held: Under ORS 656.214, a claimant is entitled to compensation for the full measure of impairment that is due in material part to, and resulting in material part from, the compensable industrial injury unless the insurer or self-insured employer avails itself of the statutory…”

Grudle v. State Accident Ins. Fund, 479 P.2d 250 (Or. Ct. App. 1971). · cites it 32× “The appeal requires that we construe and apply certain portions of a statute, ORS 656.214, which provides in its relevant sections as follows: " Permanent partial disability.”

Suchi v. SAIF Corp., 241 P.3d 1174 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 8× “The plain text of ORS 656.214 and ORS 656.726(4) require the conclusion that a worker who has been released for work but who is unable to return to work for any cause not related to the injury is not entitled to “work disability.”

England v. Thunderbird & Saif Corp., 848 P.2d 100 (Or. 1993). · cites it 7× “, supra, 111 Or App at 328 , the Court of Appeals held that the rules that do not rate age, education, and adaptability when claimant continues in her usual work were adopted under the director’s statutory authority and were not inconsistent with former ORS 656.214, the statute…”

Show all 175 citing cases →

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.214(1) — 8 cases

Russell v. State Accident Ins. Fund, 574 P.2d 653 (Or. 1978).

Shubert v. Blue Chips, 951 P.2d 172 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).

McDermott v. SAIF Corp., 398 P.3d 964 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “2 SAIF argues that the board correctly concluded that apportionment was appropriate under ORS 656.214 and the administrative rules for rating disability in OAR chapter 436, division 35.”

Magana-Marquez v. SAIF Corp., 366 P.3d 764 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).

Marholin v. SAIF, 343 Or. App. 135 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.214(1)(a) — 15 cases

Caren v. Providence Health Sys. Or. (In re Caren), 446 P.3d 67 (Or. 2019). “ORS 656.214 obligates employers to provide compensation for a worker's permanent impairment, meaning "loss of use or function" that is "due to the compensable industrial injury.”

Gramada v. SAIF, 532 P.3d 539 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “In that order, the board found that claimant’s workplace injury to her lower back did not cause impairment to claimant and denied claimant an award of permanent partial disability benefits under ORS 656.214. A medical arbiter found loss of use or function to claimant’s low back,…”

Robinette v. SAIF, 511 P.3d 1074 (Or. 2022). “Held: When calculating permanent partial disability awards, each distinct loss of use or function of a body part is considered separately to determine if it qualifies as “impairment”—that is, “loss of use or function of a body part or system due to the compensable industrial…”

Johnson v. SAIF, 507 P.3d 1277 (Or. 2022). “Held: Under ORS 656.214, a claimant is entitled to compensation for the full measure of impairment that is due in material part to, and resulting in material part from, the compensable industrial injury unless the insurer or self-insured employer avails itself of the statutory…”

Russell v. State Accident Ins. Fund, 563 P.2d 738 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.214(1)(b) — 3 cases

Tee v. Albertsons, Inc., 842 P.2d 374 (Or. 1992).

Gramada v. SAIF (Or. Ct. App. 2023).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.214(1)(c) — 5 cases

Simi v. LTI Inc. - Lynden Inc., 491 P.3d 33 (Or. 2021).

Schleiss v. SAIF Corp., 281 P.3d 626 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).

Deschutes Cnty. v. Leak, 519 P.3d 1277 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.214(1)(d) — 2 cases

Wright v. SAIF Corp. (In re Wright), 433 P.3d 382 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).

Cent. Oregon Intergovernmental Council v. Albert, 320 P.3d 614 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.214(1)(e) — 4 cases

Wright v. SAIF Corp. (In re Wright), 433 P.3d 382 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).

Deschutes Cnty. v. Leak, 519 P.3d 1277 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).

Cent. Oregon Intergovernmental Council v. Albert, 320 P.3d 614 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.214(2) — 41 cases

Saif Corp. v. Herron, 836 P.2d 131 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). “Employer seeks review of a Workers' Compensation Board order holding that *132 claimant's award of scheduled permanent partial disability (PPD) should be paid at the rate of $305 per degree, pursuant to ORS 656.214(2), as amended by Or.Laws 1990, ch.”

Grudle v. State Accident Ins. Fund, 479 P.2d 250 (Or. Ct. App. 1971). “The appeal requires that we construe and apply certain portions of a statute, ORS 656.214, which provides in its relevant sections as follows: " Permanent partial disability.”

Woodman v. Georgia-Pac. Corp., 614 P.2d 1162 (Or. 1980). “, Shemel, Workmen's Compensation Awards for Injuries to Specific Members of the Body, 30 Cornell L.”

Ohlig v. FMC Marine & Rail Equip. Div., 633 P.2d 1279 (Or. 1981).

Tee v. Albertsons, Inc., 842 P.2d 374 (Or. 1992).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.214(2)(a) — 11 cases

Woodman v. Georgia-Pac. Corp., 614 P.2d 1162 (Or. 1980). “, Shemel, Workmen's Compensation Awards for Injuries to Specific Members of the Body, 30 Cornell L.”

Suchi v. SAIF Corp., 241 P.3d 1174 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “The plain text of ORS 656.214 and ORS 656.726(4) require the conclusion that a worker who has been released for work but who is unable to return to work for any cause not related to the injury is not entitled to “work disability.”

Schleiss v. SAIF Corp., 281 P.3d 626 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.214(2)(b) — 4 cases

Thrifty Payless, Inc. v. Cole, 269 P.3d 76 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).

Hodge v. Sullivan, 791 F. Supp. 256 (D. Or. 1992).

Wright v. SAIF Corp. (In re Wright), 433 P.3d 382 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).

Cent. Oregon Intergovernmental Council v. Albert, 320 P.3d 614 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.214(2)(c) — 3 cases

Shaw v. Portland Laundry/Dry Cleaning, 615 P.2d 1134 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).

Am. Bldg. Maint. v. McLees, 679 P.2d 1361 (Or. 1984).

Olds v. Superior Fast Freight, 585 P.2d 709 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.214(2)(f) — 1 case

Needham v. Boise Cascade Corp., 571 P.2d 181 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.214(2)(g) — 1 case

Needham v. Boise Cascade Corp., 571 P.2d 181 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.214(2)(h) — 1 case

Russell v. State Accident Ins. Fund, 563 P.2d 738 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.214(2)(h)(i) — 1 case

Russell v. State Accident Ins. Fund, 563 P.2d 738 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.214(2)(i) — 2 cases

Woodman v. Georgia-Pac. Corp., 614 P.2d 1162 (Or. 1980). “, Shemel, Workmen's Compensation Awards for Injuries to Specific Members of the Body, 30 Cornell L.”

Gordon v. City of Portland, 927 P.2d 96 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.214(2)(k) — 1 case

SAIF Corp. v. Cline, 897 P.2d 1172 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.214(3) — 2 cases

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.214(4) — 4 cases

Surratt v. Gunderson Bros. Eng'g Corp., 485 P.2d 410 (Or. 1971).

Foster v. State Accident Ins. Fund, 485 P.2d 407 (Or. 1971).

Audas v. Galaxie, Inc., 467 P.2d 654 (Or. Ct. App. 1970).

Lisoski v. the Embers, 465 P.2d 888 (Or. Ct. App. 1970).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.214(5) — 75 cases

Woodman v. Georgia-Pac. Corp., 614 P.2d 1162 (Or. 1980). “, Shemel, Workmen's Compensation Awards for Injuries to Specific Members of the Body, 30 Cornell L.”

Carroll v. Boise Cascade Corp., 910 P.2d 1111 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).

England v. Thunderbird & Saif Corp., 848 P.2d 100 (Or. 1993). “, supra, 111 Or App at 328 , the Court of Appeals held that the rules that do not rate age, education, and adaptability when claimant continues in her usual work were adopted under the director’s statutory authority and were not inconsistent with former ORS 656.214, the statute…”

Harwell v. Argonaut Ins., 678 P.2d 1202 (Or. 1984).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.214(6) — 5 cases

SAIF Corp. v. Walker, 930 P.2d 230 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). “If that is true, then it is unnecessary to say that waxing and waning of symptoms is an expected feature of every condition (ORS 656.”

Young v. Hermiston Good Samaritan, 194 P.3d 857 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).

Crowder v. Alumaflex, 986 P.2d 1269 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).

SAIF Corp. v. Santos, 94 P.3d 906 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).

Santos v. Caryall Transp., 17 P.3d 509 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.214(7) — 3 cases

SAIF Corp. v. Walker, 930 P.2d 230 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). “If that is true, then it is unnecessary to say that waxing and waning of symptoms is an expected feature of every condition (ORS 656.”

SAIF Corp. v. Walker, 996 P.2d 979 (Or. 2000).

Lepage v. Rogue Valley Med. Ctr., 999 P.2d 533 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.214(i) — 1 case

Gordon v. City of Portland, 927 P.2d 96 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.214(l)(a) — 13 cases

Schleiss v. SAIF Corp., 317 P.3d 244 (Or. 2013). “” The second statute, ORS 656.214, which authorizes awards of PPD, provides, in part, that, *641 “(l)(a) ‘Impairment’ means the loss of use or function of a body part or system due to the compensable industrial injury or occupational disease determined in accordance with the…”

Schleiss v. SAIF Corp., 281 P.3d 626 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).

Russell v. State Accident Ins. Fund, 574 P.2d 653 (Or. 1978).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.214(l)(b) — 4 cases

Hill v. Qwest, 35 P.3d 1051 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).

Tee v. Albertsons, Inc., 842 P.2d 374 (Or. 1992).

Lecangdam v. SAIF Corp., 59 P.3d 528 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).

Buddenberg v. Southcoast Lumber, 850 P.2d 360 (Or. 1993).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.214(l)(c) — 3 cases

SAIF Corp. v. VanBibber, 227 P.3d 1224 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.214(l)(c)(A) — 2 cases

Walker v. Providence Health Sys. Oregon, 340 P.3d 91 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.214(l)(d) — 2 cases

SAIF Corp. v. VanBibber, 227 P.3d 1224 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).

Thrifty Payless, Inc. v. Cole, 269 P.3d 76 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.214(l)(e) — 7 cases

Schleiss v. SAIF Corp., 281 P.3d 626 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).

Liberty Nw. Ins. v. Olvera-Chavez, 339 P.3d 928 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).

Thrifty Payless, Inc. v. Cole, 269 P.3d 76 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.214(l)(e)(A) — 1 case

Magana-Marquez v. SAIF Corp., 366 P.3d 764 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).

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.