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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.278 (2026)

Board has continuing authority to alter earlier action on claim; limitations

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

      656.278 Board has continuing authority to alter earlier action on claim; limitations. (1) Except as provided in subsection (7) of this section, the power and jurisdiction of the Workers’ Compensation Board shall be continuing, and it may, upon its own motion, from time to time modify, change or terminate former findings, orders or awards if in its opinion such action is justified in those cases in which:

      (a) There is a worsening of a compensable injury that results in the inability of the worker to work and requires hospitalization or inpatient or outpatient surgery, or other curative treatment prescribed in lieu of hospitalization that is necessary to enable the injured worker to return to work. In such cases, the payment of temporary disability compensation in accordance with ORS 656.210, 656.212 (2) and 656.262 (4) may be provided from the time the attending physician authorizes temporary disability compensation for the hospitalization, surgery or other curative treatment until the worker’s condition becomes medically stationary;

      (b) The worker submits and obtains acceptance of a claim for a compensable new medical condition or an omitted medical condition pursuant to ORS 656.267 and the claim is initiated after the rights under ORS 656.273 have expired. In such cases, the payment of temporary disability compensation in accordance with the provisions of ORS 656.210, 656.212 (2) and 656.262 (4) may be provided from the time the attending physician authorizes temporary disability compensation for the hospitalization, surgery or other curative treatment until the worker’s condition becomes medically stationary, and the payment of permanent disability benefits may be provided after application of the standards for the evaluation and determination of disability as may be adopted by the Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services pursuant to ORS 656.726; or

      (c) The date of injury is earlier than January 1, 1966. In such cases, in addition to the payment of temporary disability compensation, the payment of medical benefits may be provided.

      (2) Benefits provided under subsection (1) of this section:

      (a) Do not include vocational assistance benefits under ORS 656.340;

      (b) Do not include temporary disability compensation for periods of time during which the claimant did not qualify as a “worker” pursuant to ORS 656.005 (28);

      (c) Do not include medical services provided pursuant to ORS 656.245 except as provided under subsection (1)(c) of this section; and

      (d) May include permanent disability benefits for additional impairment to an injured body part that has previously been the basis of a permanent partial disability award, but only to the extent that the permanent partial disability rating exceeds the permanent partial disability rated by the prior award or awards.

      (3) An order or award made by the board during the time within which the claimant has the right to request a hearing on aggravation under ORS 656.273 is not an order or award, as the case may be, made by the board on its own motion.

      (4) Pursuant to ORS 656.298, any party may appeal an order or award made by the board on its own motion.

      (5) The insurer or self-insured employer may voluntarily reopen any claim to provide benefits allowable under this section or to grant additional medical or hospital care to the claimant. The board shall establish procedures for the resolution of disputes arising out of a voluntary reopening of a claim under this section.

      (6) Any claim reopened under this section shall be closed by the insurer or self-insured employer in a manner prescribed by the board, including, when appropriate, an award of permanent disability benefits as determined under subsections (1)(b) and (2)(d) of this section. The board shall also prescribe a process to be followed if the worker objects to the claim closure.

      (7) The provisions of this section do not authorize the board, on its own motion, to modify, change or terminate former findings or orders:

      (a) That a claimant incurred no injury or incurred a noncompensable injury; or

      (b) Approving disposition of a claim under ORS 656.236 or 656.289 (4). [Amended by 1955 c.718 §1; 1957 c.559 §1; 1965 c.285 §33; 1981 c.535 §32; 1985 c.212 §6; 1987 c.884 §37; 1990 c.2 §19; 1995 c.332 §33; 2001 c.865 §11; 2005 c.188 §2; 2021 c.257 §3]

 

      656.280 [Amended by 1965 c.285 §41b; renumbered 656.325]

 

      656.282 [Amended by 1957 c.455 §1; repealed by 1965 c.285 §95]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 109 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1957–2023 · leading case: Jordan v. SAIF Corp., 167 P.3d 451 (Or. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jordan v. SAIF Corp., 167 P.3d 451 (Or. 2007). · cites it 26× “This case concerns the scope of the Workers’ Compensation Board’s (board) power under its “own motion” authority, pursuant to ORS 656.278. Specifically, we must determine whether the board’s own-motion authority includes the power to suspend temporary disability payments when a…”
Goddard v. Liberty Nw. Ins. Corp., 89 P.3d 1215 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 19× “Claimant seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board, issued pursuant to the board’s own motion authority, ORS 656.278, in which the board held, inter alia, that it lacked statutory authority to award claimant permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits.”
Holmes v. State Indus. Accident Comm'n, 363 P.2d 563 (Or. 1961). · cites it 32× “" The provisions of our Workmen's Compensation Act, upon the subjects of the 1917 and 1925 amendments, as now phrased in ORS 656.278, reads: "The power and jurisdiction of the Commission shall be continuing, and it may, upon its own motion, from time to time modify, change or…”
Barackman v. Gen. Tel. Co. of Nw., Inc., 548 P.2d 1341 (Or. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 18× “[2] ORS 656.278 grants the Workman's Compensation Board what is known as the Board's "own-motion jurisdiction"; this consists of authority to change awards of compensation without regard to any of the time limits in the compensation law.”
Dougan v. SAIF Corp., 115 P.3d 242 (Or. 2005). · cites it 11× “278(1), the board “may, upon its own motion, from time to time modify, change or terminate former findings, orders or awards” if it determines that such action is “justified” because, among other reasons, “[t]here is a worsening of a compensable injury * * Here, the board…”
Coombs v. State Accident Ins. Fund, 592 P.2d 242 (Or. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 7× “ORS 656.278 gives the Board continuing jurisdiction to alter earlier actions on claims.”
Talley v. BCI Coca Cola Bottling, 55 P.3d 558 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 10× “On July 10, 2000, the ALJ issued an order determining that, because claimant’s aggravation rights had expired, claimant’s claim was within the board’s own motion jurisdiction, ORS 656.278, under which there is no entitlement to vocational assistance.”
Azorr v. Azorr, 47 P.3d 542 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 3× “On April 11, 2000, the board issued an “own motion” order authorizing the reopening of claimant’s prior claim under its “own motion” jurisdiction.”
McDowell v. State Accident Ins. Fund, 510 P.2d 587 (Or. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 11× “See, former ORS 656.278 (1) (1953). Under the revised law the administrative functions were divided between the State Compensation Department, now the State Accident Insurance Fund (SAIF), and the Workmen’s Compensation Board.”
Buell v. State Indus. Accident Comm'n, 395 P.2d 442 (Or. 1964). · cites it 7× “On February 16, 1961, the claim was reopened by *494 the Commission on its own motion pursuant to ORS 656.278. On July 3, 1963, .the Commission closed the claim with an award of permanent partial disability equal to 20 per cent loss of function of an arm.”
Miltenberger v. Howard's Plumbing, 762 P.2d 1057 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 5× “Former ORS 656.278. 1 We affirm. If claimant’s aggravation rights under ORS 656.”
Elsea v. Liberty Mut. Ins., 371 P.3d 1279 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “The board therefore reopened claimant’s claim under its “own motion” jurisdiction, ORS 656.278(1). See also ORS 656.005(30), defining “worker” and stating that, for the purpose of determining entitlement to temporary disability benefits or permanent total disability benefits,…”
Show all 109 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.278(1) — 30 cases
Jordan v. SAIF Corp., 167 P.3d 451 (Or. 2007). “This case concerns the scope of the Workers’ Compensation Board’s (board) power under its “own motion” authority, pursuant to ORS 656.278. Specifically, we must determine whether the board’s own-motion authority includes the power to suspend temporary disability payments when a…”
Dougan v. SAIF Corp., 115 P.3d 242 (Or. 2005). “278(1), the board “may, upon its own motion, from time to time modify, change or terminate former findings, orders or awards” if it determines that such action is “justified” because, among other reasons, “[t]here is a worsening of a compensable injury * * Here, the board…”
Elsea v. Liberty Mut. Ins., 371 P.3d 1279 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “The board therefore reopened claimant’s claim under its “own motion” jurisdiction, ORS 656.278(1). See also ORS 656.005(30), defining “worker” and stating that, for the purpose of determining entitlement to temporary disability benefits or permanent total disability benefits,…”
Thomas Creek Lumber & Log Co. v. Dep't of Revenue, 178 P.3d 217 (Or. 2008).
Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Clatsop Co.), 724 P.2d 805 (Or. 1986).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.278(1)(a) — 5 cases
Talley v. BCI Coca Cola Bottling, 55 P.3d 558 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “On July 10, 2000, the ALJ issued an order determining that, because claimant’s aggravation rights had expired, claimant’s claim was within the board’s own motion jurisdiction, ORS 656.278, under which there is no entitlement to vocational assistance.”
State Ex Rel. Borisoff v. Workers' Comp. Bd., 802 P.2d 98 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
SAIF Corp. v. Pendergast-Long, 964 P.2d 1099 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
Butcher v. SAIF Corp., 270 P.3d 385 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
Gage v. Fred Meyer Stores - Kroger Co. (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.278(1)(b) — 5 cases
Labor Ready v. Mogensen, 365 P.3d 623 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
Butcher v. SAIF Corp., 270 P.3d 385 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
SAIF Corp. v. Camarena, 332 P.3d 341 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
Gage v. Fred Meyer Stores - Kroger Co. (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
Bledsoe v. City of Lincoln City, 455 P.3d 587 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.278(2) — 7 cases
Coombs v. State Accident Ins. Fund, 592 P.2d 242 (Or. Ct. App. 1979). “ORS 656.278 gives the Board continuing jurisdiction to alter earlier actions on claims.”
Goddard v. Liberty Nw. Ins. Corp., 89 P.3d 1215 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). “Claimant seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board, issued pursuant to the board’s own motion authority, ORS 656.278, in which the board held, inter alia, that it lacked statutory authority to award claimant permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits.”
Adams v. Transamerica Ins. Grp., 609 P.2d 834 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).
In THE MATTER OF MORTON v. Nw. Foundry & Furnace, 584 P.2d 346 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).
Fields v. Workmen's Comp. Bd., 552 P.2d 834 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.278(2)(a) — 1 case
Lloyd v. Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins., 123 P.3d 357 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.278(2)(b) — 2 cases
Azorr v. Azorr, 47 P.3d 542 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “On April 11, 2000, the board issued an “own motion” order authorizing the reopening of claimant’s prior claim under its “own motion” jurisdiction.”
Lloyd v. Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins., 123 P.3d 357 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.278(2)(d) — 2 cases
Goddard v. Liberty Nw. Ins. Corp., 89 P.3d 1215 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). “Claimant seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board, issued pursuant to the board’s own motion authority, ORS 656.278, in which the board held, inter alia, that it lacked statutory authority to award claimant permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits.”
Dougan v. SAIF Corp., 115 P.3d 242 (Or. 2005). “278(1), the board “may, upon its own motion, from time to time modify, change or terminate former findings, orders or awards” if it determines that such action is “justified” because, among other reasons, “[t]here is a worsening of a compensable injury * * Here, the board…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.278(3) — 17 cases
Barackman v. Gen. Tel. Co. of Nw., Inc., 548 P.2d 1341 (Or. Ct. App. 1976). “[2] ORS 656.278 grants the Workman's Compensation Board what is known as the Board's "own-motion jurisdiction"; this consists of authority to change awards of compensation without regard to any of the time limits in the compensation law.”
Adams v. Transamerica Ins. Grp., 609 P.2d 834 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).
Matter of Comp. of Petz, 648 P.2d 372 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).
Miltenberger v. Howard's Plumbing, 762 P.2d 1057 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). “Former ORS 656.278. 1 We affirm. If claimant’s aggravation rights under ORS 656.”
Int'l Paper Co. v. Wright, 722 P.2d 57 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.278(4) — 4 cases
Dougan v. SAIF Corp., 115 P.3d 242 (Or. 2005). “278(1), the board “may, upon its own motion, from time to time modify, change or terminate former findings, orders or awards” if it determines that such action is “justified” because, among other reasons, “[t]here is a worsening of a compensable injury * * Here, the board…”
In the Matter of Jordan, 136 P.3d 1156 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
Liberty Nw. Ins. v. Samel, 112 P.3d 414 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
Lloyd v. K-Mart Corp., 933 P.2d 379 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.278(5) — 4 cases
Talley v. BCI Coca Cola Bottling, 55 P.3d 558 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “On July 10, 2000, the ALJ issued an order determining that, because claimant’s aggravation rights had expired, claimant’s claim was within the board’s own motion jurisdiction, ORS 656.278, under which there is no entitlement to vocational assistance.”
Koskela v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 978 P.2d 1018 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
Gordineer v. Bellotti, 785 P.2d 362 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
Lloyd v. Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins., 123 P.3d 357 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.278(l)(a) — 10 cases
Goddard v. Liberty Nw. Ins. Corp., 89 P.3d 1215 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). “Claimant seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board, issued pursuant to the board’s own motion authority, ORS 656.278, in which the board held, inter alia, that it lacked statutory authority to award claimant permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits.”
Jordan v. SAIF Corp., 167 P.3d 451 (Or. 2007). “This case concerns the scope of the Workers’ Compensation Board’s (board) power under its “own motion” authority, pursuant to ORS 656.278. Specifically, we must determine whether the board’s own-motion authority includes the power to suspend temporary disability payments when a…”
Azorr v. Azorr, 47 P.3d 542 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “On April 11, 2000, the board issued an “own motion” order authorizing the reopening of claimant’s prior claim under its “own motion” jurisdiction.”
Wausau Ins. v. Morris, 796 P.2d 1243 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
Indep. Paper Stock v. Wincer, 788 P.2d 466 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.278(l)(b) — 9 cases
Akins v. SAIF Corp., 398 P.3d 463 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
Jordan v. SAIF Corp., 167 P.3d 451 (Or. 2007). “This case concerns the scope of the Workers’ Compensation Board’s (board) power under its “own motion” authority, pursuant to ORS 656.278. Specifically, we must determine whether the board’s own-motion authority includes the power to suspend temporary disability payments when a…”
Goddard v. Liberty Nw. Ins. Corp., 89 P.3d 1215 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). “Claimant seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board, issued pursuant to the board’s own motion authority, ORS 656.278, in which the board held, inter alia, that it lacked statutory authority to award claimant permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits.”
Rose v. Saif Corp., 116 P.3d 913 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
SAIF Corp. v. Camarena, 332 P.3d 341 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
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.