656.289 Orders
of Administrative Law Judge; review; disposition of claim when compensability
disputed; approval of director required for reimbursement of certain
expenditures. (1)
Upon the conclusion of any hearing, or prior thereto with concurrence of the
parties, the Administrative Law Judge shall promptly and not later than 30 days
after the hearing determine the matter and make an order in accordance with the
Administrative Law Judge’s determination.
(2) A copy of the
order shall be sent forthwith by mail to the Director of the Department of
Consumer and Business Services and to all parties in interest.
(3) The order is
final unless, within 30 days after the date on which a copy of the order is
mailed to the parties, one of the parties requests a review by the Workers’
Compensation Board under ORS 656.295. When one party requests a review by the
board, the other party or parties shall have the remainder of the 30-day period
and in no case less than 10 days in which to request board review in the same
manner. The 10-day requirement may carry the period of time allowed for
requests for board reviews beyond the 30th day. The order shall contain a
statement explaining the rights of the parties under this subsection and ORS
656.295.
(4)(a)
Notwithstanding ORS 656.236, in any case where there is a bona fide dispute
over compensability of a claim, the parties may, with the approval of an
Administrative Law Judge, the board or the court, by agreement make such
disposition of the claim as is considered reasonable.
(b) Insurers or
self-insured employers who are parties to an approved disputed claim settlement
under this subsection shall not be joined as parties in subsequent proceedings
under this chapter to determine responsibility for payment for claim conditions
for which settlement has been made.
(c)
Notwithstanding ORS 656.005 (21), as used in this subsection, “party” does not
include a noncomplying employer, except where a noncomplying employer has
submitted a disputed claim settlement with a claimant for approval before the
claim has been referred to an assigned claims agent by the director. Upon
approval of the disputed claim settlement, the Administrative Law Judge, the
board or the court shall mail to the director a copy of the disputed claim
settlement.
(5) Any claim in
which the parties enter into a disposition under subsection (4) of this section
shall not be eligible for reimbursement of expenditures from the Workers’
Benefit Fund without the prior approval of the director. [1965 c.285 §35; 1969
c.212 §1; 1977 c.804 §9; 1983 c.809 §3; 1990 c.2 §21; 1995 c.332 §35; 1995
c.641 §19]
656.290 [Amended by 1955 c.718 §3;
repealed by 1965 c.285 §95]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
78
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1968–2022 · leading case:
Astleford v. SAIF Corp., 874 P.2d 1329 (Or. 1994).
Astleford v. SAIF Corp., 874 P.2d 1329 (Or. 1994).
· cites it 22× “Other sections of ORS 656.289, which also relates generally to hearings and dispute resolution, likewise use the term “party.”
Fleming v. SAIF, 461 P.3d 261 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 24× “However, before a hearing was held in claimant’s case, claimant and Simonds, acting through Liberty, agreed to settle the case by DCS under the authority of ORS 656.289. The DCS recited the competing contentions of claimant and Liberty regarding claimant’s rotator cuff tear that…”
Deaton v. Hunt-Elder, 928 P.2d 992 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 24× “*995 OAR 438-09-005 was adopted by the Board to implement the second method provided by ORS 656.289 for resolving a matter concerning a claim.”
Farmers Ins. Grp. v. SAIF Corp., 724 P.2d 799 (Or. 1986).
· cites it 10× “It affirmed the Board on the jurisdiction issue and the effect of the March 14, April 5 and June 1 orders as affecting timely review and affirmed on the merits.”
Arvidson v. Liberty Nw. Ins. Corp., 467 P.3d 741 (Or. 2020).
· cites it 3× “”); ORS 656.289(1) (“Upon 8 ORS 656.283 has been amended since claimant was injured; however, because those amendments do not affect our analysis, we refer to the current version of the statute in this opinion.”
Johnson v. Dave's Auto Ctr., Inc., 476 P.2d 190 (Or. 1970).
· cites it 7× “ORS 656.289 (4), however, applies to cases in which the compensability of the claim is in dispute.”
Bakker v. Baza'r, Inc., 551 P.2d 1269 (Or. 1976).
· cites it 2× “Moreover, the record discloses that plaintiff filed her civil action before defendant took any action to contest her compensation claim.”
Drews v. EBI Companies, 795 P.2d 531 (Or. 1990).
“319, or by failure to file a timely appeal to the Board, ORS 656.289(3), or the courts. ORS 656.295(8).”
Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co., 752 P.2d 312 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).
“ORS 656.289; ORS 656.295. 6 Although the referee’s opinion and order is not subject to our review, we note that she attempted to identify and state separately the issue, her findings of fact and her conclusions and the reasons therefor.”
Fred Meyer Stores v. Godfrey, 180 P.3d 98 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 4× “ORS 656.289 and ORS 656.295 regulate the process of board review of an ALJ order.”
Transamerica Ins. Grp. v. Adams, 661 P.2d 937 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 3× “See ORS 656.289(1). The order is final unless, within 30 days after the order is *425 mailed to the parties, one of them requests review by the Board.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.289(1) — 10 cases
Deaton v. Hunt-Elder, 928 P.2d 992 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
“*995 OAR 438-09-005 was adopted by the Board to implement the second method provided by ORS 656.289 for resolving a matter concerning a claim.”
Farmers Ins. Grp. v. SAIF Corp., 724 P.2d 799 (Or. 1986).
“It affirmed the Board on the jurisdiction issue and the effect of the March 14, April 5 and June 1 orders as affecting timely review and affirmed on the merits.”
Arvidson v. Liberty Nw. Ins. Corp., 467 P.3d 741 (Or. 2020).
“”); ORS 656.289(1) (“Upon 8 ORS 656.283 has been amended since claimant was injured; however, because those amendments do not affect our analysis, we refer to the current version of the statute in this opinion.”
Astleford v. SAIF Corp., 874 P.2d 1329 (Or. 1994).
“Other sections of ORS 656.289, which also relates generally to hearings and dispute resolution, likewise use the term “party.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.289(2) — 3 cases
Astleford v. SAIF Corp., 874 P.2d 1329 (Or. 1994).
“Other sections of ORS 656.289, which also relates generally to hearings and dispute resolution, likewise use the term “party.”
Fleming v. SAIF, 461 P.3d 261 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“However, before a hearing was held in claimant’s case, claimant and Simonds, acting through Liberty, agreed to settle the case by DCS under the authority of ORS 656.289. The DCS recited the competing contentions of claimant and Liberty regarding claimant’s rotator cuff tear that…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.289(3) — 38 cases
Farmers Ins. Grp. v. SAIF Corp., 724 P.2d 799 (Or. 1986).
“It affirmed the Board on the jurisdiction issue and the effect of the March 14, April 5 and June 1 orders as affecting timely review and affirmed on the merits.”
Drews v. EBI Companies, 795 P.2d 531 (Or. 1990).
“319, or by failure to file a timely appeal to the Board, ORS 656.289(3), or the courts. ORS 656.295(8).”
Fred Meyer Stores v. Godfrey, 180 P.3d 98 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
“ORS 656.289 and ORS 656.295 regulate the process of board review of an ALJ order.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.289(4) — 39 cases
Astleford v. SAIF Corp., 874 P.2d 1329 (Or. 1994).
“Other sections of ORS 656.289, which also relates generally to hearings and dispute resolution, likewise use the term “party.”
Fleming v. SAIF, 461 P.3d 261 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“However, before a hearing was held in claimant’s case, claimant and Simonds, acting through Liberty, agreed to settle the case by DCS under the authority of ORS 656.289. The DCS recited the competing contentions of claimant and Liberty regarding claimant’s rotator cuff tear that…”
Bakker v. Baza'r, Inc., 551 P.2d 1269 (Or. 1976).
“Moreover, the record discloses that plaintiff filed her civil action before defendant took any action to contest her compensation claim.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.289(4)(a) — 2 cases
Fleming v. SAIF, 461 P.3d 261 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“However, before a hearing was held in claimant’s case, claimant and Simonds, acting through Liberty, agreed to settle the case by DCS under the authority of ORS 656.289. The DCS recited the competing contentions of claimant and Liberty regarding claimant’s rotator cuff tear that…”
Deaton v. Hunt-Elder, 928 P.2d 992 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
“*995 OAR 438-09-005 was adopted by the Board to implement the second method provided by ORS 656.289 for resolving a matter concerning a claim.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.289(4)(b) — 1 case
Fleming v. SAIF, 461 P.3d 261 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“However, before a hearing was held in claimant’s case, claimant and Simonds, acting through Liberty, agreed to settle the case by DCS under the authority of ORS 656.289. The DCS recited the competing contentions of claimant and Liberty regarding claimant’s rotator cuff tear that…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.289(l) — 1 case
Deaton v. Hunt-Elder, 928 P.2d 992 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
“*995 OAR 438-09-005 was adopted by the Board to implement the second method provided by ORS 656.289 for resolving a matter concerning a claim.”
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.