Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.310

Presumption concerning notice of injury and self-inflicted injuries; reports as evidence

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

      656.310 Presumption concerning notice of injury and self-inflicted injuries; reports as evidence. (1) In any proceeding for the enforcement of a claim for compensation under this chapter, there is a rebuttable presumption that:

      (a) Sufficient notice of injury was given and timely filed; and

      (b) The injury was not occasioned by the willful intention of the injured worker to commit self-injury or suicide.

      (2) The contents of medical, surgical and hospital reports presented by claimants for compensation shall constitute prima facie evidence as to the matter contained therein; so, also, shall such reports presented by the insurer or self-insured employer, provided that the doctor rendering medical and surgical reports consents to submit to cross-examination. This subsection shall also apply to medical or surgical reports from any treating or examining doctor who is not a resident of Oregon, provided that the claimant, self-insured employer or the insurer shall have a reasonable time, but no less than 30 days after receipt of notice that the report will be offered in evidence at a hearing, to cross-examine such doctor by deposition or by written interrogatories to be settled by the Administrative Law Judge. [1965 c.285 §40; 1969 c.447 §1; 1981 c.854 §21]

 

      656.312 [Amended by 1953 c.428 §2; 1965 c.285 §44; renumbered 656.578]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases, 1969–2014 · leading case: Mount v. Department of Consumer & Business Services
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mount v. Department of Consumer & Business Services (2002) orctapp · cites it 6× “Claimant also sought to exclude the admission of the medical arbiter's report because Neumann was not made available for cross-examination, and claimant argued that she had a right to cross-examination under ORS 656.310(2). The ALJ admitted the medical arbiter's report, holding…”
Koskela v. Willamette Industries, Inc. (2000) or · cites it 3× “310(2), which provides, in part: “The contents of medical, surgical and hospital reports presented by claimants for compensation shall constitute prima facie evidence as to the matter contained therein; so, also, shall such reports presented by the insurer or self-insured…”
Trujillo v. Pacific Safety Supply (2004) or · cites it 3× “She claimed that she had a constitutional due process right to cross-examine witnesses against her and that she also was entitled to do so under ORS 656.310(2), which provides that a medical report presented by an insurer or employer is prima facie evidence as to the matter…”
Camacho v. SAIF Corp. (2014) orctapp · cites it 12× “STANDARD OF REVIEW We review the board’s interpretation and application of ORS 656.310 for legal error and its factual findings for substantial evidence.”
Logsdon v. SAIF Corp. (2002) orctapp · cites it 2× “" John Henry Wigmore, 5 Evidence in Trials at Common Law § 1367, 32 (1979). Claimant here is denied this fundamental tool for discovering the truth.”
Zurita v. Canby Nursery (1992) orctapp · cites it 6× “The issue before us in this workers’ compensation case is whether hearsay statements regarding the cause of an injury contained in medical reports constitute prima facie evidence of causation under ORS 656.310(2). On December 12, 1989, claimant sought treatment from Dr.”
Blakely v. SAIF Corp. (1988) orctapp · cites it 2× “Claimant appears to argue that, under ORS 656.310(2), Campagna’s written report stating that her condition was causally related to her work, established a prima facie case for compensability.”
Hanna v. McGrew Bros. Sawmill, Inc. (1980) orctapp · cites it 3× “Weinman pursuant to ORS 656.310(2). Copies of the reports were furnished to Argonaut well in advance of the hearing.”
Lucke v. State Compensation Department (1969) or “The hearing officer based his ruling upon ORS 656.310, *443 which authorizes the receipt of medical reports.”
Clark v. U. S. Plywood (1979) orctapp · cites it 2× “ORS 656.310(l)(b) does not relate to the issue here at all, there being no contention that Clark intended his own death.”
Frey v. Willamette Industries, Inc. (1973) orctapp “states in part: “The Workmen’s Compensation Board believes that ORS 656.310 (2) is intended to strongly encourage the use of written medical reports and limit the need for personal appearances by doctors.”
McCrae v. Wilson (1977) orctapp · cites it 3× “” The effect of this formula was to make the annual wages limitation which the first sentence of 52 former ORS 656.310(3) placed upon the benefits of farmworkers who are employed more than half a year equally applicable to the benefits of farmworkers who worked less than half of…”
Show all 17 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.310(2) — 13 cases
Mount v. Department of Consumer & Business Services (2002) orctapp “Claimant also sought to exclude the admission of the medical arbiter's report because Neumann was not made available for cross-examination, and claimant argued that she had a right to cross-examination under ORS 656.310(2). The ALJ admitted the medical arbiter's report, holding…”
Koskela v. Willamette Industries, Inc. (2000) or “310(2), which provides, in part: “The contents of medical, surgical and hospital reports presented by claimants for compensation shall constitute prima facie evidence as to the matter contained therein; so, also, shall such reports presented by the insurer or self-insured…”
Trujillo v. Pacific Safety Supply (2004) or “She claimed that she had a constitutional due process right to cross-examine witnesses against her and that she also was entitled to do so under ORS 656.310(2), which provides that a medical report presented by an insurer or employer is prima facie evidence as to the matter…”
Logsdon v. SAIF Corp. (2002) orctapp “" John Henry Wigmore, 5 Evidence in Trials at Common Law § 1367, 32 (1979). Claimant here is denied this fundamental tool for discovering the truth.”
Camacho v. SAIF Corp. (2014) orctapp “STANDARD OF REVIEW We review the board’s interpretation and application of ORS 656.310 for legal error and its factual findings for substantial evidence.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.310(3) — 1 case
McCrae v. Wilson (1977) orctapp “” The effect of this formula was to make the annual wages limitation which the first sentence of 52 former ORS 656.310(3) placed upon the benefits of farmworkers who are employed more than half a year equally applicable to the benefits of farmworkers who worked less than half of…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.310(l)(b) — 1 case
Clark v. U. S. Plywood (1979) orctapp “ORS 656.310(l)(b) does not relate to the issue here at all, there being no contention that Clark intended his own death.”
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.