Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.283 (2026)

Hearing rights and procedure; rules; impeachment evidence; use of standards for evaluation of disability

✓ current as of May 2026

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

656.283 Hearing rights and procedure; rules; impeachment evidence; use of standards for evaluation of disability. (1) Subject to ORS 656.319, any party or the Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services may at any time request a hearing on any matter concerning a claim, except matters for which a procedure for resolving the dispute is provided in another statute, including ORS 656.704.

(2) A request for hearing may be made by any writing, signed by or on behalf of the party and including the address of the party, requesting the hearing, stating that a hearing is desired, and mailed to the Workers’ Compensation Board.

(3)(a) The board shall refer the request for hearing to an Administrative Law Judge for determination as expeditiously as possible. The hearing shall be scheduled for a date not more than 90 days after receipt by the board of the request for hearing. The hearing may not be postponed:

(A) Except in extraordinary circumstances beyond the control of the requesting party; and

(B) For more than 120 days after the date of the postponed hearing.

(b) When a hearing set pursuant to paragraph (a) of this subsection is postponed because of the need to join one or more potentially responsible employers or insurers, the assigned Administrative Law Judge shall reschedule the hearing as expeditiously as possible after all potentially responsible employers and insurers have been joined in the proceeding and the medical record has been fully developed. The board shall adopt rules for hearings on claims involving one or more potentially responsible employers and insurers that:

(A) Require the parties to participate in any prehearing conferences required to expedite the hearing; and

(B) Authorize the Administrative Law Judge conducting the hearing to:

(i) Establish a prehearing schedule for investigation of the claim, including but not limited to the interviewing of the claimant;

(ii) Make prehearing rulings necessary to promote full discovery and completion of the medical record required for determination of the issues arising from the claim; and

(iii) Specify what is required of the claimant to meet the obligation to reasonably cooperate with the investigation of claims.

(c) Nothing in paragraph (b) of this subsection alters the obligation of an insurer or self-insured employer to accept or deny a claim for compensation as required under this chapter.

(d) If a hearing has been postponed in accordance with paragraph (b) of this subsection:

(A) The director may not consider the timeliness of a denial issued in the claim that is the subject of the hearing for the purpose of imposing a penalty against an insurer or self-insured employer that is potentially responsible for the claim; and

(B) The 120-day maximum postponement established under paragraph (a) of this subsection for rescheduling a hearing does not apply.

(4)(a) At least 60 days’ prior notice of the time and place of hearing shall be given to all parties in interest by mail. Hearings shall be held in the county where the worker resided at the time of the injury or such other place selected by the Administrative Law Judge.

(b) The 60-day prior notice required by paragraph (a) of this subsection:

(A) May be waived by agreement of the parties and the board if waiver of the notice will result in an earlier date for the hearing.

(B) Does not apply to hearings in cases assigned to the Expedited Claim Service under ORS 656.291, cases involving stayed compensation under ORS 656.313 (1)(b) and requests for hearing that are consolidated with an existing case with an existing hearing date.

(5) A record of all proceedings at the hearing shall be kept but need not be transcribed unless a party requests a review of the order of the Administrative Law Judge. Transcription shall be in written form as provided by ORS 656.295 (3).

(6) Except as otherwise provided in this section and rules of procedure established by the board, the Administrative Law Judge is not bound by common law or statutory rules of evidence or by technical or formal rules of procedure, and may conduct the hearing in any manner that will achieve substantial justice. Neither the board nor an Administrative Law Judge may prevent a party from withholding impeachment evidence until the opposing party’s case in chief has been presented, at which time the impeachment evidence may be used. Impeachment evidence consisting of medical or vocational reports not used during the course of a hearing must be provided to any opposing party at the conclusion of the presentation of evidence and before closing arguments are presented. Impeachment evidence other than medical or vocational reports that is not presented as evidence at hearing is not subject to disclosure. Evaluation of the worker’s disability by the Administrative Law Judge shall be as of the date of issuance of the reconsideration order pursuant to ORS 656.268. Any finding of fact regarding the worker’s impairment must be established by medical evidence that is supported by objective findings. The Administrative Law Judge shall apply to the hearing of the claim such standards for evaluation of disability as may be adopted by the director pursuant to ORS 656.726. Evidence on an issue regarding a notice of closure that was not submitted at the reconsideration required by ORS 656.268 is not admissible at hearing, and issues that were not raised by a party to the reconsideration may not be raised at hearing unless the issue arises out of the reconsideration order itself. However, nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent or limit the right of a worker, insurer or self-insured employer to present the reconsideration record at hearing to establish by a preponderance of that evidence that the standards adopted pursuant to ORS 656.726 for evaluation of the worker’s permanent disability were incorrectly applied in the reconsideration order pursuant to ORS 656.268. If the Administrative Law Judge finds that the claim has been closed prematurely, the Administrative Law Judge shall issue an order rescinding the notice of closure.

(7) Any party shall be entitled to issuance and service of subpoenas under the provisions of ORS 656.726 (2)(c). Any party or representative of the party may serve such subpoenas.

(8) After a party requests a hearing and before the hearing commences, the board, by rule, may require the requesting party, if represented by an attorney, to notify the Administrative Law Judge in writing that the attorney has conferred with the other party and that settlement has been achieved, subject to board approval, or that settlement cannot be achieved. [1965 c.285 §34; 1979 c.839 §7; 1981 c.535 §33; 1981 c.860 §§1,5; 1985 c.600 §9; 1987 c.884 §11; 1990 c.2 §20; 1995 c.332 §34; 1999 c.313 §7; 2003 c.667 §2; 2005 c.26 §11; 2005 c.624 §1; 2009 c.35 §2]

656.284 [Amended by 1953 c.671 §2; 1955 c.718 §2; 1959 c.450 §4; repealed by 1965 c.285 §95]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 230 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1968–2025 · leading case: Koskela v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 978 P.2d 1018 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Koskela v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 978 P.2d 1018 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 52× “If either party is dissatisfied with the order on reconsideration, it may request a hearing under ORS 656.283 before an ALJ. ORS 656.268(6)(g).”

Koskela v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 15 P.3d 548 (Or. 2000). · cites it 22× “A party that is dissatisfied with an order on reconsideration may request a hearing under ORS 656.283. ORS 656.268(6)(f) (1995) renumbered as ORS 656.”

Saif Corp. v. Allen, 881 P.2d 773 (Or. 1994). · cites it 18× “If the claim for medical services is denied, the worker may submit to the board a request for hearing pursuant to ORS 656.283. In the event the worker cannot locate the insurer or self-insured employer, if the worker does not know who the insurer or self-insured employer is, or…”

Logsdon v. SAIF Corp., 45 P.3d 990 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 18× “ORS 656.283 grants a claimant the right to request a hearing on any issue concerning compensation, including when the claimant became medically stationary.”

Trujillo v. Pac. Saf. Supply, 84 P.3d 119 (Or. 2004). · cites it 15× “268 and ORS 656.283 satisfy due process. The case then went to hearing on the documentary evidence developed through reconsideration.”

Havi Grp. LP v. Fyock, 131 P.3d 793 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 16× “” 3 Employer’s position before the administrative law judge was based on a misunderstanding of the controlling statute. As amplified below, under ORS 656.283(3), a request for hearing “may be made by any writing, signed by or on behalf of the party * * (Emphasis added.”

Veselik v. SAIF Corp., 33 P.3d 1007 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 11× “Petitioner argues that ORS 656.283(7) is unconstitutional on its face and that the Supreme Court’s decision in Koskela v.”

Arvidson v. Liberty Nw. Ins. Corp., 467 P.3d 741 (Or. 2020). · cites it 6× “When an insurer “objects to [a] reconsideration order, the [insurer] may request a hearing under ORS 656.283.” ORS 656.268 (6)(g). If the insurer requests such a hearing and the request relates to “any matter concerning a claim,” ORS 656.”

Williams v. Saif Corp., 797 P.2d 1036 (Or. 1990). · cites it 12× “The court analyzed the problem this way: "ORS 656.283(7)[ [1] ] ensures that all parties will have the opportunity to present their evidence.”

Liberty Nw. Ins. Corp. v. Jacobson, 988 P.2d 442 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 9× “Kronsteiner’s representations and the material provided by VoTech, I agree with [the hearings judge] that the misrepresentations constitute a violation of OAR 436-120-0520(2) * * * [and] the spirit of the law as stated in ORS 656.283(2)(a). «* * * * t- *44 “After considering the…”

Martin v. City of Albany, 880 P.2d 926 (Or. 1994). · cites it 5× “He requested a hearing under ORS 656.283 before the Hearings Division.”

Saif Corp. v. Herron, 836 P.2d 131 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 4× “268(4), (5), (6), (7) and (8), ORS 656.283(7), 656.295, 656.319, 656.325, 656.”

Show all 230 citing cases →

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.283(1) — 51 cases

Drews v. EBI Companies, 795 P.2d 531 (Or. 1990).

Hathaway v. Health Future Enter., 884 P.2d 549 (Or. 1994).

Sather v. Saif Corp., 347 P.3d 326 (Or. 2015).

Arvidson v. Liberty Nw. Ins. Corp., 467 P.3d 741 (Or. 2020). “When an insurer “objects to [a] reconsideration order, the [insurer] may request a hearing under ORS 656.283.” ORS 656.268 (6)(g). If the insurer requests such a hearing and the request relates to “any matter concerning a claim,” ORS 656.”

Koskela v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 15 P.3d 548 (Or. 2000). “A party that is dissatisfied with an order on reconsideration may request a hearing under ORS 656.283. ORS 656.268(6)(f) (1995) renumbered as ORS 656.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.283(2) — 16 cases

Saif Corp. v. Allen, 881 P.2d 773 (Or. 1994). “If the claim for medical services is denied, the worker may submit to the board a request for hearing pursuant to ORS 656.283. In the event the worker cannot locate the insurer or self-insured employer, if the worker does not know who the insurer or self-insured employer is, or…”

Colclasure v. Washington Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 48-J, 857 P.2d 126 (Or. 1993).

SAIF Corp. v. Severson, 803 P.2d 1203 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).

Lasley v. Ontario Rendering, 836 P.2d 184 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).

Sekermestrovich v. State Accident Ins. Fund, 573 P.2d 275 (Or. 1977).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.283(2)(a) — 2 cases

Liberty Nw. Ins. Corp. v. Jacobson, 988 P.2d 442 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). “Kronsteiner’s representations and the material provided by VoTech, I agree with [the hearings judge] that the misrepresentations constitute a violation of OAR 436-120-0520(2) * * * [and] the spirit of the law as stated in ORS 656.283(2)(a). «* * * * t- *44 “After considering the…”

Colclasure v. Washington Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 48-J, 843 P.2d 953 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.283(2)(b) — 1 case

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.283(2)(c) — 1 case

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.283(2)(c)(D) — 1 case

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.283(2)(d) — 2 cases

Gonzalez v. Schrock Cabinet Co., 4 P.3d 74 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.283(3) — 9 cases

Havi Grp. LP v. Fyock, 131 P.3d 793 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “” 3 Employer’s position before the administrative law judge was based on a misunderstanding of the controlling statute. As amplified below, under ORS 656.283(3), a request for hearing “may be made by any writing, signed by or on behalf of the party * * (Emphasis added.”

Astleford v. SAIF Corp., 874 P.2d 1329 (Or. 1994).

Salter v. SAIF Corp., 816 P.2d 1208 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).

Guerra v. SAIF Corp., 826 P.2d 1034 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).

Blain v. Owen, 807 P.2d 313 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.283(3)(a) — 1 case

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.283(3)(c) — 1 case

Talley v. BCI Coca Cola Bottling, 55 P.3d 558 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.283(4) — 5 cases

Georgia-Pac. Corp. v. Piwowar, 753 P.2d 948 (Or. 1988).

Erck v. Brown Oldsmobile & EBI Companies, 815 P.2d 1251 (Or. 1991).

Astoria Plywood Co. v. Culp, 840 P.2d 99 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).

Comp. of Stoneman v. State Accident Ins. Fund, 609 P.2d 408 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.283(5) — 3 cases

Astleford v. SAIF Corp., 874 P.2d 1329 (Or. 1994).

SAIF Corp. v. Sweeney, 839 P.2d 254 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).

Astoria Plywood Co. v. Culp, 840 P.2d 99 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.283(6) — 17 cases

Pena v. Travelers Ins. Co. (In re Pena), 432 P.3d 382 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).

Caren v. Providence Health Sys. Or. (In re Caren), 446 P.3d 67 (Or. 2019).

Icenhower v. SAIF Corp., 43 P.3d 431 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).

Providence Health Sys. v. Walker, 289 P.3d 256 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).

Sahnow v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 491 P.2d 997 (Or. 1971).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.283(7) — 59 cases

Koskela v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 978 P.2d 1018 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). “If either party is dissatisfied with the order on reconsideration, it may request a hearing under ORS 656.283 before an ALJ. ORS 656.268(6)(g).”

Logsdon v. SAIF Corp., 45 P.3d 990 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “ORS 656.283 grants a claimant the right to request a hearing on any issue concerning compensation, including when the claimant became medically stationary.”

Trujillo v. Pac. Saf. Supply, 84 P.3d 119 (Or. 2004). “268 and ORS 656.283 satisfy due process. The case then went to hearing on the documentary evidence developed through reconsideration.”

Veselik v. SAIF Corp., 33 P.3d 1007 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). “Petitioner argues that ORS 656.283(7) is unconstitutional on its face and that the Supreme Court’s decision in Koskela v.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.283(8) — 1 case

Astleford v. SAIF Corp., 874 P.2d 1329 (Or. 1994).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.283(l) — 1 case

Horgen v. Martinez, 790 P.2d 1195 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).

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.