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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.266 (2026)

Burden of proving compensability and nature and extent of disability

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

      656.266 Burden of proving compensability and nature and extent of disability. (1) The burden of proving that an injury or occupational disease is compensable and of proving the nature and extent of any disability resulting therefrom is upon the worker. The worker cannot carry the burden of proving that an injury or occupational disease is compensable merely by disproving other possible explanations of how the injury or disease occurred.

      (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, for the purpose of combined condition injury claims under ORS 656.005 (7)(a)(B) only:

      (a) Once the worker establishes an otherwise compensable injury, the employer shall bear the burden of proof to establish the otherwise compensable injury is not, or is no longer, the major contributing cause of the disability of the combined condition or the major contributing cause of the need for treatment of the combined condition.

      (b) Notwithstanding ORS 656.804, paragraph (a) of this subsection does not apply to any occupational disease claim. [1987 c.713 §2; 2001 c.865 §2]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 113 cases (21 in the last 5 years), 1988–2026 · leading case: McTaggart v. Time Warner Cable, 16 P.3d 1154 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
McTaggart v. Time Warner Cable, 16 P.3d 1154 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 34× “266, the Board focused on the second aspect of the Supreme Court's opinion and ignored the first; it treated the relationship between an unexplained fall and the claimant's work as solely one of fact. We conclude, contrary to the Board, that the court held that an unexplained…”
Brown v. SAIF Corp., 325 P.3d 834 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 6× “” Furthermore, ORS 656.266(2)(a) provides, as relevant: “Once the worker establishes an otherwise compensa-ble injury, the employer shall bear the burden of proof to establish the otherwise compensable injury is not, or is no longer, the major contributing cause of the…”
Seeley v. Sisters of Providence, 41 P.3d 1093 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 16× “He explained: “Based on ORS 656.266, a claimant must show that a condition is in fact related to the work environment.”
Alcutt v. Adams Fam. Food Servs., Inc., 311 P.3d 959 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 15× “005 (7)(a)(B); ORS 656.266. Subsequently — and on the basis of the same underlying events — plaintiff filed this civil action against defendant, alleging negligence and violation of workplace-safety rules.”
Washington Cnty. - Risk v. Jansen, 273 P.3d 278 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 15× “Because we conclude that ORS 656.266 allocates to claimants the burden of proving that a compensable occupational disease remains the major contributing cause of a combined condition and the board assigned that burden to employer, we reverse and remand.”
Brown v. SAIF Corp., 391 P.3d 773 (Or. 2017). · cites it 2× “If a claimant believes that such a written notice of acceptance incorrectly omits a compensable condition, he or she may object at any time and file a claim for the omitted condition.”
Caren v. Providence Health Sys. Or. (In re Caren), 446 P.3d 67 (Or. 2019). · cites it 4× “" ORS 656.266(1). However, "for the purpose of combined condition injury claims under ORS 656.”
Schleiss v. SAIF Corp., 317 P.3d 244 (Or. 2013). · cites it 4× “ORS 656.266. Impairment must be established by a preponderance of medical evidence based upon objective findings.”
Coleman v. SAIF Corp., 125 P.3d 845 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 8× “ORS 656.266(1). When, however, it is asserted that the claim is for a combined condition, ORS 656.”
Fred Meyer, Inc. v. Hayes, 943 P.2d 197 (Or. 1997). · cites it 4× “" ORS 656.266. On review, the facts are not contested.”
Hopkins v. SAIF Corp., 245 P.3d 90 (Or. 2010). · cites it 4× “” Under ORS 656.266(1), a worker has the burden of proving that he or she has suffered a “compensable injury.”
Koskela v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 15 P.3d 548 (Or. 2000). · cites it 4× “ORS 656.266. Claimant sought to prove that he was permanently totally *369 disabled.”
Show all 113 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.266(1) — 49 cases
Sheldon v. U.S. Bank (In re Comp. of Sheldon), 441 P.3d 210 (Or. 2019).
Brown v. SAIF Corp., 391 P.3d 773 (Or. 2017). “If a claimant believes that such a written notice of acceptance incorrectly omits a compensable condition, he or she may object at any time and file a claim for the omitted condition.”
Hopkins v. SAIF Corp., 245 P.3d 90 (Or. 2010). “” Under ORS 656.266(1), a worker has the burden of proving that he or she has suffered a “compensable injury.”
Robinette v. SAIF, 511 P.3d 1074 (Or. 2022).
Rowden v. Hogan Woods, LLC, 476 P.3d 485 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.266(2) — 13 cases
Keystone RV Co.-Thor Indus., Inc. v. Erickson, 373 P.3d 1122 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
Petock v. Asante, 268 P.3d 579 (Or. 2011).
Carrillo v. SAIF, 484 P.3d 398 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
Alcutt v. Adams Fam. Food Servs., Inc., 311 P.3d 959 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “005 (7)(a)(B); ORS 656.266. Subsequently — and on the basis of the same underlying events — plaintiff filed this civil action against defendant, alleging negligence and violation of workplace-safety rules.”
Washington Cnty. - Risk v. Jansen, 273 P.3d 278 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “Because we conclude that ORS 656.266 allocates to claimants the burden of proving that a compensable occupational disease remains the major contributing cause of a combined condition and the board assigned that burden to employer, we reverse and remand.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.266(2)(a) — 41 cases
Brown v. SAIF Corp., 325 P.3d 834 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). “” Furthermore, ORS 656.266(2)(a) provides, as relevant: “Once the worker establishes an otherwise compensa-ble injury, the employer shall bear the burden of proof to establish the otherwise compensable injury is not, or is no longer, the major contributing cause of the…”
Coleman v. SAIF Corp., 125 P.3d 845 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “ORS 656.266(1). When, however, it is asserted that the claim is for a combined condition, ORS 656.”
Caren v. Providence Health Sys. Or. (In re Caren), 446 P.3d 67 (Or. 2019). “" ORS 656.266(1). However, "for the purpose of combined condition injury claims under ORS 656.”
Brown v. SAIF Corp., 391 P.3d 773 (Or. 2017). “If a claimant believes that such a written notice of acceptance incorrectly omits a compensable condition, he or she may object at any time and file a claim for the omitted condition.”
Alcutt v. Adams Fam. Food Servs., Inc., 311 P.3d 959 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “005 (7)(a)(B); ORS 656.266. Subsequently — and on the basis of the same underlying events — plaintiff filed this civil action against defendant, alleging negligence and violation of workplace-safety rules.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.266(2)(b) — 1 case
Alcutt v. Adams Fam. Food Servs., Inc., 311 P.3d 959 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “005 (7)(a)(B); ORS 656.266. Subsequently — and on the basis of the same underlying events — plaintiff filed this civil action against defendant, alleging negligence and violation of workplace-safety rules.”
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.