Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.307

Determination of issues regarding responsibility for compensation payment; mediation or arbitration procedure; rules

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

      656.307 Determination of issues regarding responsibility for compensation payment; mediation or arbitration procedure; rules. (1)(a) Where there is an issue regarding:

      (A) Which of several subject employers is the true employer of a claimant worker;

      (B) Which of more than one insurer of a certain employer is responsible for payment of compensation to a worker;

      (C) Responsibility between two or more employers or their insurers involving payment of compensation for one or more accidental injuries; or

      (D) Joint employment by two or more employers,

 

the Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services shall, by order, designate who shall pay the claim, if the employers and insurers admit that the claim is otherwise compensable. Payments shall begin in any event as provided in ORS 656.262 (4).

      (b) At the time of claim closure, all parties to an order issued pursuant to paragraph (a) of this subsection shall have reconsideration and appeal rights.

      (2) The director then shall request the Workers’ Compensation Board chairperson to appoint an Administrative Law Judge to determine the responsible paying party. The proceedings shall be conducted in the same manner as any other hearing and any further appeal shall be conducted pursuant to ORS 656.295 and 656.298.

      (3) When a determination of the responsible paying party has been made, the director shall direct any necessary monetary adjustment between the parties involved. Any monetary adjustment not reimbursed by an insurer or self-insured employer shall be recovered from the Consumer and Business Services Fund. Any stipulation or agreement under subsection (6) of this section shall not obligate the Consumer and Business Services Fund for reimbursement without prior approval of the Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services.

      (4) No self-insured employer or an insurer shall be joined in any proceeding under this section regarding its responsibility for any claim subject to ORS 656.273 unless the issue is entitled to hearing on application of the worker.

      (5) The claimant shall be joined in any proceeding under this section as a necessary party, but may elect to be treated as a nominal party. If the claimant appears at any such proceeding and actively and meaningfully participates through an attorney, the Administrative Law Judge may require that a reasonable fee for the claimant’s attorney be paid by the employer or insurer determined by the Administrative Law Judge to be the party responsible for paying the claim.

      (6)(a) Notwithstanding subsection (2) of this section, parties to a responsibility proceeding under this section may agree to resolution of the dispute by mediation or arbitration by a private party. Any settlement stipulation, arbitration decision or other resolution of matters in dispute resulting from mediation or arbitration proceedings shall be filed with the Hearings Division and shall be given the same force and effect as an order of an Administrative Law Judge made pursuant to subsection (2) of this section. However, any such settlement stipulation, arbitration decision or other resolution is binding on the parties and is not subject to review by the director, an Administrative Law Judge, the board or any court or other administrative body, unless required pursuant to paragraph (d) of this subsection or subsection (3) of this section.

      (b) For purposes of this subsection, mediation is a process of discussion and negotiation, with the mediator playing a central role in seeking a consensus among the parties. Such consensus may be reflected in a final mediation settlement stipulation, signed by all the parties and fully binding upon the parties with the same effect as a final order of an Administrative Law Judge, when the signed mediation settlement stipulation is filed with the Hearings Division of the Workers’ Compensation Board.

      (c) For purposes of this subsection, arbitration is an agreement to submit the matter to a binding decision by an arbitrator, through a process mutually agreed upon in advance. Once all the parties have agreed in writing to proceed with arbitration, no party may withdraw from the arbitration process except as provided in the written arbitration agreement.

      (d) A mediation settlement stipulation may include matters beyond the responsibility issues. If other matters are included, the settlement agreement shall be submitted to the Hearings Division of the Workers’ Compensation Board for review and approval, under this chapter, as to such additional matters beyond the responsibility issues.

      (e) Any arbitration decision shall be limited to a decision as to responsibility and, where appropriate, the payment of associated costs and attorney fees. The arbitrator’s decision shall have the same effect as a final order of an Administrative Law Judge when the signed decision is filed with the Hearings Division.

      (f) When the parties have reported to the Hearings Division that they have agreed upon a mediation or arbitration process, the hearing shall be deferred for 90 days to allow the mediation or arbitration process to occur. Once 90 days have passed, the matter shall again be docketed for hearing unless the parties advise the Hearings Division in writing that progress has been made and request an extension of time of up to 90 days, which extension of time shall be granted as a matter of right. Once the second 90 days have passed, the matter shall again be docketed for hearing, and the hearing shall proceed before an Administrative Law Judge as though there had been no mediation or arbitration process, unless the parties present a mediation settlement stipulation or signed arbitration decision before the hearing begins.

      (g) All parties must agree in writing to pursue mediation or arbitration and must agree upon the selection of the mediator or arbitrator. The mediator or arbitrator shall not be an employee of any insurer or self-insured employer that is a party to the proceedings. The mediator or arbitrator must be an attorney admitted to practice law in the State of Oregon. The mediator or arbitrator may serve as a mediator or arbitrator, even if the mediator or arbitrator separately represents any insurer or self-insured employer in other proceedings, provided that all parties are advised of such representation and consent in writing that the mediator or arbitrator may so serve despite such other representation. Such written consent supersedes any legal ethics restrictions otherwise provided for in law or regulation.

      (h) If the claimant is represented by an attorney, the other parties must arrange for payment of a reasonable attorney fee for the claimant’s attorney’s services during the mediation or arbitration. Any mediation or arbitration agreement shall specify the terms of the fee arrangement.

      (i) If the claimant is not represented by an attorney, the mediation process cannot include any issue other than responsibility. A nonrepresented claimant must be advised in writing of the following before the mediation or arbitration proceeds:

      (A) The claimant’s right to refuse to participate in mediation or arbitration proceedings and to, instead, proceed to a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge;

      (B) The present rate of temporary total disability benefits for each alleged date of injury;

      (C) The present rate of permanent partial disability benefits for each alleged date of injury;

      (D) The estimated date of expiration of aggravation rights for each alleged date of injury; and

      (E) The claimant’s right to be represented by counsel of the claimant’s choice at no expense to the claimant.

      (j) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any insurer or self-insured employer may be represented by a certified claims examiner rather than by an attorney in any mediation or arbitration hereunder. Any separate insured for the same insurer shall be represented by a separate claims examiner, if the insured has a continuing financial exposure as to the claim; where no continuing financial exposure exists, a single certified claims examiner may represent more than one insured for the same insurer in the mediation or arbitration proceeding.

      (k) Any other procedures as to mediation or arbitration shall be subject to agreement among the parties. The Workers’ Compensation Board may adopt rules as to the process for deferral and docketing of hearings where mediation or arbitration occurs, the filing of arbitration decisions as orders of the Hearings Division, the filing of mediation settlement stipulations regarding responsibility as orders of the Hearings Division, and review and approval of mediation settlement stipulations that extend beyond the issues of responsibility and associated attorney fees and costs. The Workers’ Compensation Board shall not enact rules that restrict the mediation or arbitration process except to the extent provided within this section. [1965 c.285 §39; 1971 c.70 §1; 1979 c.839 §8; 1987 c.713 §5; 1995 c.332 §36; 1997 c.43 §1; 1999 c.313 §9; 1999 c.876 §3; 2003 c.657 §§9,10; 2007 c.274 §5]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 112 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1970–2025 · leading case: Dean Warren Plumbing & Liberty Northwest Insurance v. Brenner
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dean Warren Plumbing & Liberty Northwest Insurance v. Brenner (1997) orctapp · cites it 58× “307(5), for claimant's attorney's representation before an administrative law judge (ALJ) in a responsibility proceeding under ORS 656.307. Dean Warren argues that the Board erred because the fee award exceeded $1,000, the maximum allowable award of fees under ORS 656.”
Speciality Risk Services v. Royal Indemnity Co. (2007) orctapp · cites it 18× “We consider each argument in turn. Defendant first argues that the purpose of the Workers’ Compensation Law was to “create a single system to address all aspects of workers’ compensation claims and avoid litigation.”
Saif Corp. v. Allen (1994) or · cites it 4× “[20] A denial that raises an issue of responsibility covered by ORS 656.307(1) [21] requires the director to designate who shall pay the claim.”
SAIF Corp. v. Wart (2004) orctapp · cites it 4× “As another example, the dissent refers to denials based on a lack of responsibility under ORS 656.307 and ORS 656.308 for which "a worker may not be entitled to compensation from a particular employer even though the injury or condition is determined to be compensable.”
Runft v. Saif Corp. (1987) or · cites it 3× “See ORS 656.307; OAR 436-54-332.” (Footnote omitted.”
Brown v. SAIF Corp. (2017) or “226 (the date of the “accidental injury”); ORS 656.307(l)(a)(C) (responsibility for payment of compensation for “one or more accidental injuries”).”
Petshow v. Farm Bureau Insurance (1985) orctapp · cites it 5× “Farm Bureau then sought a designation pursuant to ORS 656.307 as to which insurer should pay compensation.”
EBI Companies v. Thomas (1983) orctapp · cites it 10× ““By copy of this letter to Dan Zahn of the Workers’ Compensation Board and to Argonaut Insurance Company, we are requesting the appointment of a designated paying agency [under ORS 656.307] to process your claim until the responsibility for your present condition can be…”
Wilson v. State Accident Insurance Fund (1980) orctapp · cites it 4× “On March 24, 1977, EBI was designated as a paying agent pursuant to ORS 656.307. 1 *996 Following a hearing before the referee, an opinion and order was issued on November 3, 1977, which held SAIF responsible.”
Schlecht v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp. (1982) orctapp · cites it 3× “593 arises out of its responsibility for compensation, and the amount distributed is ascertained in part by the amount of compensation.”
Port of Portland Ocip v. Cierniak (2006) orctapp · cites it 3× “308, rather than ORS 656.307. Although both statutes address claimant’s entitlement to fees in responsibility proceedings, ORS 656.”
Jackson v. State Accident Insurance Fund (1971) orctapp · cites it 3× “The *117 Board order “adopted” ORS 656.307. ⑤ We interpret “adopted” to mean that the Board will follow the procedure provided in ORS 656.”
Show all 112 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.307(1) — 14 cases
Saif Corp. v. Allen (1994) or “[20] A denial that raises an issue of responsibility covered by ORS 656.307(1) [21] requires the director to designate who shall pay the claim.”
Speciality Risk Services v. Royal Indemnity Co. (2007) orctapp “We consider each argument in turn. Defendant first argues that the purpose of the Workers’ Compensation Law was to “create a single system to address all aspects of workers’ compensation claims and avoid litigation.”
D Maintenance Company v. Mischke (1987) orctapp
Renolds-Croft, Inc. v. Bill Morrison Co. (1982) orctapp
Allen v. Bohemia, Inc. (1993) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.307(1)(a)(C) — 1 case
Brown v. SAIF (2017) or
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.307(1)(c) — 1 case
Saltmarsh v. A. T. Industries, Inc. (1978) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.307(2) — 7 cases
Speciality Risk Services v. Royal Indemnity Co. (2007) orctapp “We consider each argument in turn. Defendant first argues that the purpose of the Workers’ Compensation Law was to “create a single system to address all aspects of workers’ compensation claims and avoid litigation.”
Stevens Equipment Co. v. American Fabricators (1991) orctapp
Delta/McLean Trucking v. Wyncoop (1991) orctapp
Cameron Logging v. Jones (1991) orctapp
Liberty Northwest Insurance v. Oregon Steel Mills (1991) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.307(3) — 9 cases
Speciality Risk Services v. Royal Indemnity Co. (2007) orctapp “We consider each argument in turn. Defendant first argues that the purpose of the Workers’ Compensation Law was to “create a single system to address all aspects of workers’ compensation claims and avoid litigation.”
Petshow v. Farm Bureau Insurance (1985) orctapp “Farm Bureau then sought a designation pursuant to ORS 656.307 as to which insurer should pay compensation.”
Department of Consumer & Business Services v. Zurich American (2011) orctapp
Department of Consumer & Business Services v. Zurich American (2012) orctapp
Hanna v. McGrew Bros. Sawmill, Inc. (1980) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.307(5) — 17 cases
Dean Warren Plumbing & Liberty Northwest Insurance v. Brenner (1997) orctapp “307(5), for claimant's attorney's representation before an administrative law judge (ALJ) in a responsibility proceeding under ORS 656.307. Dean Warren argues that the Board erred because the fee award exceeded $1,000, the maximum allowable award of fees under ORS 656.”
Speciality Risk Services v. Royal Indemnity Co. (2007) orctapp “We consider each argument in turn. Defendant first argues that the purpose of the Workers’ Compensation Law was to “create a single system to address all aspects of workers’ compensation claims and avoid litigation.”
Employer Solutions Staffing Group v. SAIF (2025) orctapp
Employer Solutions Staffing Group v. SAIF (2025) orctapp
Liberty Northwest Insurance v. Kaleta (2001) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.307(l)(a)(C) — 1 case
Brown v. SAIF Corp. (2017) or “226 (the date of the “accidental injury”); ORS 656.307(l)(a)(C) (responsibility for payment of compensation for “one or more accidental injuries”).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.307(l)(b) — 1 case
J. C. Compton Co. v. DeGraff (1981) orctapp
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.