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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.304 (2026)

When acceptance of compensation precludes hearing

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

      656.304 When acceptance of compensation precludes hearing. A claimant may accept and cash any check given in payment of any award or compensation without affecting the right to a hearing, except that the right of hearing on any award shall be waived by acceptance of a lump sum award by a claimant where such lump sum award was granted as a result of the claimant’s own request under ORS 656.230. This section shall not be construed as a waiver of the necessity of complying with ORS 656.283 to 656.298. [Formerly 656.294; 2007 c.270 §6]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1975–2023 · leading case: Dept. of Just. v. Spear, 783 P.2d 998 (Or. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dept. of Just. v. Spear, 783 P.2d 998 (Or. 1989). “304 was to identify the sections of the Workmen’s Compensation Act setting out the hearing procedures and the scope of review and was not intended to exclude other provisions in another part of the Workmen’s Compensation Act under the heading of Legal Representation dealing with…”
Landriscina v. Raygo-Wagner, 632 P.2d 1281 (Or. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 5× “ORS 656.304. Claimant also contends that if he has not waived his right to contest the award, he is entitled to permanent total disability benefits.”
Giltner v. SAIF, 529 P.3d 986 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “Raygo- Wagner, 53 Or App 558, 563-65 , 632 P2d 1281 (1981), when interpreting ORS 656.304,5 we determined that a worker who requested and received a lump sum payment of an award did not knowingly waive his right to seek reconsid- eration of the award.”
Rosenstiel v. State Accident Ins. Fund, 532 P.2d 33 (Or. Ct. App. 1975). “* * *” ORS 656.304. ORS 656.273(4) reads, in part: “The claim for aggravation must be supported by a written opinion from a physician that there are reasonable grounds for the claim.”
Fernandez v. M & M Reforestation, 860 P.2d 898 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). “We review for substantial evidence and errors of law, ORS 656.304(6) and ORS 183.482(8), and affirm.”
State v. Spear, 767 P.2d 928 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “525 was intended to incorporate all of the relevant provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act relating to judicial review of action taken on inmate claims.”
Giltner v. SAIF (Or. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “Raygo- Wagner, 53 Or App 558, 563-65 , 632 P2d 1281 (1981), when interpreting ORS 656.304,5 we determined that a worker who requested and received a lump sum payment of an award did not knowingly waive his right to seek reconsid- eration of the award.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.304(6) — 1 case
Fernandez v. M & M Reforestation, 860 P.2d 898 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). “We review for substantial evidence and errors of law, ORS 656.304(6) and ORS 183.482(8), and affirm.”
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.