656.298
Judicial review of board orders; settlement during pendency of petition for
review. (1) Within
the time limit specified in ORS 656.295, any party affected by an order of the
Workers’ Compensation Board, including orders issued pursuant to ORS 656.278,
may request judicial review of the order by the Court of Appeals.
(2) The name and
style of the proceedings shall be “In the Matter of the Compensation of (name
of the worker).”
(3) The judicial
review shall be commenced by serving a copy of a petition for judicial review
on the board and on the parties who appeared in the review proceedings, and by
filing with the clerk of the Court of Appeals the original petition for
judicial review with proof of service indorsed thereon. The petition for
judicial review shall state:
(a) The name of
the person requesting judicial review and of all other parties.
(b) The date of
the filing of the order for which judicial review is requested.
(c) A statement
that the person is requesting judicial review by the Court of Appeals.
(d) A brief
statement of the relief requested and the reasons the relief should be granted.
(4) Within 10
days after service of a petition for judicial review on a party under
subsection (3) of this section, such party may also request judicial review in
the same manner.
(5) The following
requirements of subsection (3) of this section are jurisdictional and may not
be waived or extended:
(a) Service of
the petition for judicial review on all parties identified in the petition for
judicial review as adverse parties or, if the petition for judicial review does
not identify adverse parties, on all parties who have appeared in the
proceeding before the board, within the time limits imposed by ORS 656.295 (8)
and by subsection (4) of this section.
(b) Filing of the
original petition for judicial review with the Court of Appeals within the time
limits imposed by ORS 656.295 (8) and by subsection (4) of this section.
(6) Within 30
days after service of a petition for judicial review on the board, the board
shall forward to the clerk of the Court of Appeals:
(a) The original
copy of the transcribed record prepared under ORS 656.295.
(b) All exhibits.
(c) Copies of all
decisions and orders entered during the hearing and review proceedings.
(7) The review by
the Court of Appeals shall be on the entire record forwarded by the board.
Review shall be as provided in ORS 183.482 (7) and (8).
(8) Review under
this section shall be given precedence on the docket over all other cases,
except those given equal status by statute.
(9)(a) If the
parties to a petition for judicial review of an order of the board settle all
or part of the matter during the pendency of the petition for judicial review,
the board has jurisdiction to enter any orders that may be necessary to
implement the settlement.
(b) If the
settlement disposes of all issues during the pendency of the petition for
judicial review, the appellate court may dismiss the petition for judicial
review.
(c) If the
settlement disposes of part of the issues during the pendency of the petition
for judicial review, the appellate court may limit judicial review to the
issues not disposed of by the settlement. [1965 c.285 §36; 1977 c.804 §11; 1987
c.884 §12a; 1997 c.389 §1; 2005 c.188 §3; 2007 c.17 §1]
656.301 [Formerly 656.292; repealed by
1977 c.804 §55]
Notes of Decisions
Sahnow v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 491 P.2d 997 (Or. 1971).
· cites it 12× “Circuit court review is described in ORS 656.298 (6): “The circuit court review shall be by a judge, without a jury, on the entire record forwarded by the board.”
Sw. Forest Indus. v. Anders, 701 P.2d 432 (Or. 1985).
· cites it 13× “Unfortunately, in rejecting the application of the particular subsections of ORS chapter 19 cited to us by SAIF, we made too broad a statement when we said: “Our examination of ORS chapter 19 satisfies us that it has no application to appeals from administrative tribunals.…”
Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co., 752 P.2d 312 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 3× “202, amendments by this Act to * * * ORS 656.298 * * * become operative January 1,1988.”
Koskela v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 978 P.2d 1018 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 8× “In 1977, the legislature eliminated review by the circuit court. Instead the Court of Appeals directly reviewed orders by the Workers' Compensation Board.”
Booth v. Tektronix, Inc., 823 P.2d 402 (Or. 1991).
· cites it 8× “DISCUSSION The essence of claimant's argument to this court is that the Board's interpretation of the statutes and rules, which permits the communications at issue, is an erroneous interpretation of the agency's own rules, the workers' compensation statutes, and other provisions…”
Hannan v. Good Samaritan Hosp., 471 P.2d 831 (Or. Ct. App. 1970).
· cites it 5× “2d 224 (1968), supra, interpreted ORS 656.298(6) and 656.301 as requiring that judicial review be de novo.”
Hopkins v. SAIF Corp., 245 P.3d 90 (Or. 2010).
· cites it 4× “” The ALJ found the testimony of respondent’s experts more persuasive and concluded that petitioner had preexisting “arthritis” and that the employer had met its burden to establish that petitioner’s otherwise compensable injury was not the major contributing cause of her…”
Arvidson v. Liberty Nw. Ins. Corp., 467 P.3d 741 (Or. 2020).
· cites it 4× “In addition, “ORS 656.298, which had provided since 1965 for appeal to the circuit court from decisions of the [b]oard, was amended to delete reference to the circuit court and to substitute therefor the Court of Appeals.”
Coday v. Willamette Tug & Barge Co., 440 P.2d 224 (Or. 1968).
· cites it 6× “The controlling statute is ORS 656.298(6), which reads as follows: “The circuit court review shall be by a judge, without a jury, on the entire record forwarded by the board.”
Pena v. Travelers Ins. Co. (In re Pena), 432 P.3d 382 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“"); ORS 656.298(7) (providing that the Court of Appeals reviews orders of the workers' compensation board as provided in ORS 183.”
Haskell Corp. v. Filippi, 953 P.2d 396 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 14× “482 does not apply to workers' compensation cases, but that was a narrow holding that was premised on the fact that that subsection includes a procedure that the legislature specifically removed from our review authority under ORS 656.298. United Foam Corp. v. Whiddon, 92 Or.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.298(1) — 29 cases
Hopkins v. SAIF Corp., 245 P.3d 90 (Or. 2010).
“” The ALJ found the testimony of respondent’s experts more persuasive and concluded that petitioner had preexisting “arthritis” and that the employer had met its burden to establish that petitioner’s otherwise compensable injury was not the major contributing cause of her…”
Arvidson v. Liberty Nw. Ins. Corp., 467 P.3d 741 (Or. 2020).
“In addition, “ORS 656.298, which had provided since 1965 for appeal to the circuit court from decisions of the [b]oard, was amended to delete reference to the circuit court and to substitute therefor the Court of Appeals.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.298(2) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.298(3) — 17 cases
Sw. Forest Indus. v. Anders, 701 P.2d 432 (Or. 1985).
“Unfortunately, in rejecting the application of the particular subsections of ORS chapter 19 cited to us by SAIF, we made too broad a statement when we said: “Our examination of ORS chapter 19 satisfies us that it has no application to appeals from administrative tribunals.…”
Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co., 752 P.2d 312 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).
“202, amendments by this Act to * * * ORS 656.298 * * * become operative January 1,1988.”
Sahnow v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 491 P.2d 997 (Or. 1971).
“Circuit court review is described in ORS 656.298 (6): “The circuit court review shall be by a judge, without a jury, on the entire record forwarded by the board.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.298(3)(c) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.298(3)(d) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.298(4) — 1 case
Sw. Forest Indus. v. Anders, 701 P.2d 432 (Or. 1985).
“Unfortunately, in rejecting the application of the particular subsections of ORS chapter 19 cited to us by SAIF, we made too broad a statement when we said: “Our examination of ORS chapter 19 satisfies us that it has no application to appeals from administrative tribunals.…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.298(4)(a) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.298(5) — 3 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.298(5)(a) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.298(5)(b) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.298(6) — 177 cases
Sahnow v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 491 P.2d 997 (Or. 1971).
“Circuit court review is described in ORS 656.298 (6): “The circuit court review shall be by a judge, without a jury, on the entire record forwarded by the board.”
Booth v. Tektronix, Inc., 823 P.2d 402 (Or. 1991).
“DISCUSSION The essence of claimant's argument to this court is that the Board's interpretation of the statutes and rules, which permits the communications at issue, is an erroneous interpretation of the agency's own rules, the workers' compensation statutes, and other provisions…”
Hannan v. Good Samaritan Hosp., 471 P.2d 831 (Or. Ct. App. 1970).
“2d 224 (1968), supra, interpreted ORS 656.298(6) and 656.301 as requiring that judicial review be de novo.”
Coday v. Willamette Tug & Barge Co., 440 P.2d 224 (Or. 1968).
“The controlling statute is ORS 656.298(6), which reads as follows: “The circuit court review shall be by a judge, without a jury, on the entire record forwarded by the board.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.298(6)(c) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.298(7) — 149 cases
Pena v. Travelers Ins. Co. (In re Pena), 432 P.3d 382 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“"); ORS 656.298(7) (providing that the Court of Appeals reviews orders of the workers' compensation board as provided in ORS 183.”
Hopkins v. SAIF Corp., 245 P.3d 90 (Or. 2010).
“” The ALJ found the testimony of respondent’s experts more persuasive and concluded that petitioner had preexisting “arthritis” and that the employer had met its burden to establish that petitioner’s otherwise compensable injury was not the major contributing cause of her…”
Koskela v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 978 P.2d 1018 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
“In 1977, the legislature eliminated review by the circuit court. Instead the Court of Appeals directly reviewed orders by the Workers' Compensation Board.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.298(8) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.298(d) — 1 case
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.