656.295 Board
review of Administrative Law Judge orders; application of standards for
evaluation of disability.
(1) The request for review by the Workers’ Compensation Board of an order of an
Administrative Law Judge need only state that the party requests a review of
the order.
(2) The requests
for review shall be mailed to the board and copies of the request shall be
mailed to all parties to the proceeding before the Administrative Law Judge.
(3) When review
has been requested, the record of such oral proceedings at the hearings before
the Administrative Law Judge as may be necessary for purposes of the review
shall be transcribed at the expense of the board. The original transcript shall
be certified to be true, accurate and complete by the transcriber. A list of
all exhibits received by the Administrative Law Judge shall be furnished to the
parties in interest along with a copy of the transcribed record.
(4) Notice of the
review shall be given to the parties by mail. The board shall set a date for
review as expeditiously as possible. Review shall be scheduled for a date not
later than 90 days after receipt by the board of the request for review. Review
shall not be postponed except in extraordinary circumstances beyond the control
of the requesting party.
(5) The review by
the board shall be based upon the record submitted to it under subsection (3)
of this section and such oral or written argument as it may receive. Evaluation
of the worker’s disability by the board 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. If the board finds that the claim has been
closed prematurely, the board shall issue an order rescinding the notice of
closure. The board shall apply to the review of the claim such standards for
the evaluation of disability as may be adopted by the Director of the
Department of Consumer and Business Services pursuant to ORS 656.726. Nothing
in this section shall be construed to prevent or limit the right of a worker,
insurer or self-insured employer to present evidence to establish by a
preponderance of the 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. However, if the board
determines that a case has been improperly, incompletely or otherwise
insufficiently developed or heard by the Administrative Law Judge, it may
remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge for further evidence taking,
correction or other necessary action.
(6) The board may
affirm, reverse, modify or supplement the order of the Administrative Law Judge
and make such disposition of the case as it determines to be appropriate. It
shall make its decision within 30 days after the review.
(7) The order of
the board shall be filed and a copy thereof sent by mail to the director and to
the parties.
(8) An order of
the board is final unless within 30 days after the date of mailing of copies of
such order to the parties, one of the parties appeals to the Court of Appeals
for judicial review pursuant to ORS 656.298. The order shall contain a
statement explaining the rights of the parties under this subsection and ORS
656.298. [1965 c.285 §35a; 1977 c.804 §10; 1987 c.884 §12; 1990 c.2 §22; 1991
c.293 §1; 1999 c.313 §8]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
168
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 1968–2025 · leading case:
Haskell Corp. v. Filippi, 953 P.2d 396 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
Haskell Corp. v. Filippi, 953 P.2d 396 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 20× “NOTES [1] Although Wausau's petition for judicial review had already been filed when the Board withdrew its order on review, the Board retained plenary authority under ORS 656.”
Hopkins v. SAIF Corp., 245 P.3d 90 (Or. 2010).
· cites it 4× “298(1) provides: “Within the time limit specified in ORS 656.295, any party affected by an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board * * * may request judicial review of the order by the Court of Appeals.”
Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co., 752 P.2d 312 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 2× “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.”
Sw. Forest Indus. v. Anders, 701 P.2d 432 (Or. 1985).
· cites it 8× “As we noted earlier, the employer acknowledged that under Modoc the Court of Appeals probably had properly dismissed.”
Shubert v. Blue Chips, 951 P.2d 172 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 9× “' ORS 656.295(5). "* * * * * "The promulgation of a temporary rule does not automatically result in a worker receiving an impairment value.”
Taylor v. SAIF, 329 Or. App. 135 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 6× “See ORS 656.295 (describing procedural steps).”
SAIF Corp. v. Fisher, 785 P.2d 1082 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 4× “ORS 656.295. With one exception, there is nothing in ORS 656.”
Compton v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 724 P.2d 814 (Or. 1986).
· cites it 5× “ORS 656.295(3) and (5). If the circuit court is permitted to consider evidence of events subsequent to the hearing, it no longer conducts a review, but itself becomes a hearing officer, without having the benefit of either the hearing officer’s or the Workmen’s Compensation…”
Drews v. EBI Companies, 795 P.2d 531 (Or. 1990).
“ORS 656.295(8). 12 B. Applying the Statutory Scheme to This Case The 1984 hearing order allowed and opened an aggravation claim, reversing a denial by EBI.”
Bailey v. State Accident Ins. Fund Corp., 672 P.2d 333 (Or. 1983).
· cites it 22× “Subsequently, but prior to the Board's issuance of an order, claimant retained an attorney and filed a motion based on ORS 656.295(5) to remand the case for the taking of further evidence, alleging that the case had been "incompletely or otherwise insufficiently developed"…”
Erck v. Brown Oldsmobile & EBI Companies, 815 P.2d 1251 (Or. 1991).
· cites it 4× “The referee who presides over the hearing is required to issue an order deciding the matter within 30 days of the hearing. ORS 656.289(1).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.295(1) — 2 cases
Hopkins v. SAIF Corp., 245 P.3d 90 (Or. 2010).
“298(1) provides: “Within the time limit specified in ORS 656.295, any party affected by an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board * * * may request judicial review of the order by the Court of Appeals.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.295(2) — 9 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.295(3) — 7 cases
Compton v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 724 P.2d 814 (Or. 1986).
“ORS 656.295(3) and (5). If the circuit court is permitted to consider evidence of events subsequent to the hearing, it no longer conducts a review, but itself becomes a hearing officer, without having the benefit of either the hearing officer’s or the Workmen’s Compensation…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.295(4) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.295(5) — 51 cases
Shubert v. Blue Chips, 951 P.2d 172 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
“' ORS 656.295(5). "* * * * * "The promulgation of a temporary rule does not automatically result in a worker receiving an impairment value.”
Bailey v. State Accident Ins. Fund Corp., 672 P.2d 333 (Or. 1983).
“Subsequently, but prior to the Board's issuance of an order, claimant retained an attorney and filed a motion based on ORS 656.295(5) to remand the case for the taking of further evidence, alleging that the case had been "incompletely or otherwise insufficiently developed"…”
Compton v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 724 P.2d 814 (Or. 1986).
“ORS 656.295(3) and (5). If the circuit court is permitted to consider evidence of events subsequent to the hearing, it no longer conducts a review, but itself becomes a hearing officer, without having the benefit of either the hearing officer’s or the Workmen’s Compensation…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.295(6) — 20 cases
Taylor v. SAIF, 329 Or. App. 135 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“See ORS 656.295 (describing procedural steps).”
Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co., 752 P.2d 312 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).
“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.”
Hopkins v. SAIF Corp., 245 P.3d 90 (Or. 2010).
“298(1) provides: “Within the time limit specified in ORS 656.295, any party affected by an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board * * * may request judicial review of the order by the Court of Appeals.”
Erck v. Brown Oldsmobile & EBI Companies, 815 P.2d 1251 (Or. 1991).
“The referee who presides over the hearing is required to issue an order deciding the matter within 30 days of the hearing. ORS 656.289(1).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.295(7) — 1 case
Haskell Corp. v. Filippi, 953 P.2d 396 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
“NOTES [1] Although Wausau's petition for judicial review had already been filed when the Board withdrew its order on review, the Board retained plenary authority under ORS 656.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.295(8) — 34 cases
Haskell Corp. v. Filippi, 953 P.2d 396 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
“NOTES [1] Although Wausau's petition for judicial review had already been filed when the Board withdrew its order on review, the Board retained plenary authority under ORS 656.”
Sw. Forest Indus. v. Anders, 701 P.2d 432 (Or. 1985).
“As we noted earlier, the employer acknowledged that under Modoc the Court of Appeals probably had properly dismissed.”
Drews v. EBI Companies, 795 P.2d 531 (Or. 1990).
“ORS 656.295(8). 12 B. Applying the Statutory Scheme to This Case The 1984 hearing order allowed and opened an aggravation claim, reversing a denial by EBI.”
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.