Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.313 (2026)

Stay of compensation pending request for hearing or review; procedure for denial of claim for medical services; reimbursement

✓ current as of May 2026

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

656.313 Stay of compensation pending request for hearing or review; procedure for denial of claim for medical services; reimbursement. (1)(a) Filing by an employer or the insurer of a request for hearing on a reconsideration order before the Hearings Division, a request for Workers’ Compensation Board review or court appeal or request for review of an order of the Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services regarding vocational assistance stays payment of the compensation appealed, except for:

(A) Temporary disability benefits that accrue from the date of the order appealed from until closure under ORS 656.268, or until the order appealed from is itself reversed, whichever event first occurs;

(B) Permanent total disability benefits that accrue from the date of the order appealed from until the order appealed from is reversed;

(C) Death benefits payable to a surviving spouse prior to remarriage, to children or dependents that accrue from the date of the order appealed from until the order appealed from is reversed; and

(D) Vocational benefits ordered by the director pursuant to ORS 656.340 (16). If a denial of vocational benefits is upheld by a final order, the insurer or self-insured employer shall be reimbursed from the Workers’ Benefit Fund pursuant to ORS 656.605 for all costs incurred in providing vocational benefits as a result of the order that was appealed.

(b) If ultimately found payable under a final order, benefits withheld under this subsection, and attorney fees and costs, shall accrue interest at the rate provided in ORS 82.010 from the date of the order appealed from through the date of payment. The board shall expedite review of appeals in which payment of compensation has been stayed under this section.

(2) If the board or court subsequently orders that compensation to the claimant should not have been allowed or should have been awarded in a lesser amount than awarded, the claimant shall not be obligated to repay any such compensation which was paid pending the review or appeal.

(3) If an insurer or self-insured employer denies the compensability of all or any portion of a claim submitted for medical services, the insurer or self-insured employer shall send notice of the denial to each provider of such medical services and to any provider of health insurance for the injured worker. Except for medical services payable in accordance with ORS 656.247, after receiving notice of the denial, a medical service provider may submit medical reports and bills for the disputed medical services to the provider of health insurance for the injured worker. The health insurance provider shall pay all such bills in accordance with the limits, terms and conditions of the policy. If the injured worker has no health insurance, such bills may be submitted to the injured worker. A provider of disputed medical services shall make no further effort to collect disputed medical service bills from the injured worker until the issue of compensability of the medical services has been finally determined.

(4) Except for medical services payable in accordance with ORS 656.247:

(a) When the compensability issue has been finally determined or when disposition or settlement of the claim has been made pursuant to ORS 656.236 or 656.289 (4), the insurer or self-insured employer shall notify each affected service provider and health insurance provider of the results of the disposition or settlement.

(b) If the services are determined to be compensable, the insurer or self-insured employer shall reimburse each health insurance provider for the amount of claims paid by the health insurance provider pursuant to this section. Such reimbursement shall be in addition to compensation or medical benefits the worker receives. Medical service reimbursement shall be paid directly to the health insurance provider.

(c) If the services are settled pursuant to ORS 656.289 (4), the insurer or self-insured employer shall reimburse, out of the settlement proceeds, each medical service provider for billings received by the insurer or self-insured employer on and before the date on which the terms of settlement are agreed as specified in the settlement document that are not otherwise partially or fully reimbursed.

(d) Reimbursement under this section shall be made only for medical services related to the claim that would be compensable under this chapter if the claim were compensable and shall be made at one-half the amount provided under ORS 656.248. In no event shall reimbursement made to medical service providers exceed 40 percent of the total present value of the settlement amount, except with the consent of the worker. If the settlement proceeds are insufficient to allow each medical service provider the reimbursement amount authorized under this subsection, the insurer or self-insured employer shall reduce each provider’s reimbursement by the same proportional amount. Reimbursement under this section shall not prevent a medical service provider or health insurance provider from recovering the balance of amounts owing for such services directly from the worker, unless the worker agrees to pay all medical service providers directly from the settlement proceeds the amount provided under ORS 656.248.

(5) As used in this section, “health insurance” has the meaning for that term provided in ORS 731.162. [1965 c.285 §41; 1979 c.673 §1; 1981 c.535 §8; 1981 c.854 §22; 1983 c.809 §2; 1990 c.2 §23; 1993 c.521 §1; 1995 c.332 §38; amendments by 1995 c.332 §38a repealed by 1999 c.6 §1; 1999 c.6 §11; 2001 c.865 §13a; 2005 c.588 §4; 2009 c.35 §4; 2011 c.80 §1; 2015 c.521 §4]

656.314 [Amended by 1965 c.285 §45; renumbered 656.580]

656.316 [Amended by 1953 c.428 §2; 1965 c.285 §46; renumbered 656.583]

656.318 [Amended by 1965 c.285 §47; renumbered 656.587]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 84 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1969–2023 · leading case: Providence Health Sys. v. Walker, 289 P.3d 256 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Providence Health Sys. v. Walker, 289 P.3d 256 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 22× “Both parties contend that ORS 656.313 provides helpful context here.”

Georgia-Pac. Corp. v. Piwowar, 753 P.2d 948 (Or. 1988). · cites it 15× “Georgia-Pacific also relies on ORS 656.313 as authority for terminating compensation payments awarded in a determination order pending a hearing on the order.”

Wisherd v. Paul Koch Volkswagen, Inc., 559 P.2d 1305 (Or. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 13× “ORS 656.313 provides: "(1) Filing by an employer or the State Accident Insurance Fund of a request for review or court appeal shall not stay payment of compensation to a claimant.”

Georgia-Pac. Corp. v. Hughes, 751 P.2d 775 (Or. 1988). · cites it 17× “For the reasons set out below, we affirm the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that awards of interim compensation are subject to ORS 656.313, but reverse the reinstatement of that portion of the penalty stricken by the Board.”

State Accident Ins. Fund Corp. v. Casteel, 703 P.2d 1039 (Or. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 20× “ORS 656.313 provides: "(1) Filing by an employer or the insurer of a request for review or court appeal shall not stay payment of compensation to a claimant.”

Norgard v. Rawlinsons & New Sys. Laundry, 569 P.2d 49 (Or. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 4× “Before the effective date of 1977 statutory amendments, circuit courts had the statutory authority to review decisions of the Board.”

State Accident Ins. Fund Corp. v. Maddox, 667 P.2d 529 (Or. 1983). · cites it 5× “In rejecting SAIF’s argument that ORS chapter 19 applies to appeals from the Workers’ Compensation Board we conclude that ORS 656.313 is controlling on the issue raised in this case.”

State Accident Ins. Fund Corp. v. Mathews, 639 P.2d 668 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 6× “The answer depends on whether ORS 656.313, as amended by Oregon Laws 1979, chapter 673, section l, 1 applies to a case in which the compensable injury arose before the effective date of the amendment.”

Tattoo v. Barrett Bus. Serv., 847 P.2d 872 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 4× “) 2 Temporary rule OAR 436-60-150(6)(c) was revised in 1992 to provide that the appeal must be pursuant to ORS 656.313. This provision was not in effect at the time of this proceeding.”

Anodizing, Inc. v. Heath, 879 P.2d 218 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 6× “In awarding temporary benefits pending the decision on its request for hearing, the Board relied on ORS 656.313, which provides, in part: “(l)(a) Filing by an employer or the insurer of a request for hearing on a reconsideration order * * * stays payment of the compensation…”

Armstrong v. Rogue Fed. Credit Union, 969 P.2d 382 (Or. 1998). · cites it 3× “262(2) (workers’ compensation is payable “except where the right to compensation is denied by the insurer or self-insured employer”); ORS 656.313(1) (employer can suspend duty to pay compensation by requesting hearing, requesting Board review, appealing to a court, or requesting…”

Atchley v. GTE Metal Erectors, 945 P.2d 557 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 4× “We affirmed, holding that, because the claimant’s right to temporary disability benefits during the pendency of appeal arose directly from an earlier version of ORS 656.313(1), his entitlement to such benefits was unconditional, and payment was required regardless of the outcome…”

Haret v. State Accident Ins. Fund Corp., 697 P.2d 201 (Or. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “" There is no provision for interest. When it is considered that other provisions of the act permit a worker to keep money paid to him or her, even though it is ultimately determined that the worker was not entitled to the compensation, ORS 656.”

Volk v. Am. West Airlines, 899 P.2d 746 (Or. Ct. App. 1995). “(6% % ‡ {: * “(8) The amendments to ORS 656.313 by section 38a of this Act apply to orders issued on or after January 1,2001.”

Liberty Nw. Ins. v. Cotner, 939 P.2d 62 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 8× “Accordingly, because ORS 656.313-(l)(a)(A) itself does not create entitlement to such benefits, the Board lacked authority to order employer to pay them while review was pending.”

Hutchinson v. Louisiana-Pac. Corp., 679 P.2d 338 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 3× “ORS 656.313(1) requires an employer to continue payments even though an appeal has been filed.”

Jones v. Emanuel Hosp., 570 P.2d 70 (Or. 1977). “ORS 656.313, it follows that petitioner is now entitled to recover the interim compensation that should have been paid between August 22, 1974, and March 4, 1975.”

Diamond Fruit Growers v. Goss, 852 P.2d 915 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 18× “The Board concluded that employer was not entitled to stay payment of compensation under amended ORS 656.313. 1 It reasoned that ORS 656.313, as amended by Oregon Laws 1990, chapter 2, section 23, provides that the filing by an employer of a request for hearing on a…”

Shoulders v. SAIF Corp., 716 P.2d 751 (Or. 1986). “2 ORS 656.313(4), relating to stay of payment of compensation to a claimant when an employer or insurer requests review or court appeal, provides that “notwithstanding ORS 656.”

State Accident Ins. Fund Corp. v. Casteel, 719 P.2d 853 (Or. 1986). · cites it 4× “The Court of Appeals held that SAIF’s payments preceding the court’s ultimate award of 50 percent permanent partial disability benefits did not count toward that award by virtue of ORS 656.313, which provides that when compensation is disallowed or reduced on review or appeal,…”

Roseburg Forest Prods. v. McDonald, 841 P.2d 697 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 3× “313(1) 4 provides: “Filing by an employer or the insurer of a request for review or court appeal shall not stay payment of compensation to a claimant.”

State Accident Ins. Fund Corp. v. Castro, 652 P.2d 1286 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 3× “Claimant contends that refusal to give effect to our decision as of the date of the opinion violates ORS 656.313, which provides in pertinent part: “(1) Filing by an employer or the insurer of a request for review or court appeal shall not stay payment of compensation to a…”

Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Roller, 737 P.2d 625 (Or. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 5× “The Supreme Court relied on ORS 656.313 to support its conclusion that an employer may be required to litigate the question of the extent of disability while the issue of compensability is pending.”

Mayes v. Boise Cascade Corp., 611 P.2d 681 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 14× “At the time of his death in October, 1977, the worker was receiving permanent total disability benefits pursuant to ORS 656.313 while his employer’s appeal from a referee’s decision that he was permanently and totally disabled was pending before the Workers’ Compensation Board.”

Williams v. State Accident Ins. Fund, 572 P.2d 658 (Or. Ct. App. 1977). “Emanuel Hospital, 280 Or 147 , 570 P2d 70 (1977); ORS 656.313. SAIF issued the first check for claimant’s temporary total disability on February 3, 1976, but it covered only one day of disability.”

Forney v. W. States Plywood, 686 P.2d 1027 (Or. 1984). “262(5) or paid during appeal pursuant to ORS 656.313 shall not be recoverable under this section.”

SAIF Corp. v. Roles, 826 P.2d 1039 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “See ORS 656.313(1) (since amended by Or Laws 1990, ch 2, § 23).”

Jeld-Wen, Inc. v. Bartz, 921 P.2d 419 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “*436 On May 17, 1994, the Board affirmed the ALJ’s October 18,1993, order requiring employer to pay temporary total disability benefits pursuant to ORS 656.313(1). Employer did not petition for judicial review of the Board’s order.”

Forney v. W. States Plywood, 672 P.2d 1376 (Or. Ct. App. 1983). “262(5) or paid during appeal pursuant to ORS 656.313 shall not be recoverable under this section.”

Sw. Forest Indus. v. Anders, 701 P.2d 432 (Or. 1985). “We held that a particular provision in the Workers’ Compensation Law, ORS 656.313, rather than ORS 19.033(1) and 19.”

Georgia-Pac. Corp. v. Piwowar, 738 P.2d 225 (Or. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “313(4), because the referee had determined that claimant had no permanent compensable disability.”

SAIF Corp. v. Vanlanen, 873 P.2d 1086 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 20× “Goss, 120 Or App 390 , 852 P2d 915 , rev den 317 Or 583 (1993), was in error and that, in any event, our conclusion that payment of benefits awarded by a determination order was stayed under ORS 656.313 was wrong. We allow reconsideration and adhere to our former opinion.”

Colclasure v. Washington Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 48-J, 843 P.2d 953 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 11× “313(4), namely death and permanent total disability, temporary total disability and permanent partial disability. As the Board’s opinion explains, the payments that were included under former ORS 656.”

Fleming v. SAIF, 461 P.3d 261 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “289(4); “(d) The factual allegations and legal positions in support of the claim; “(e) The factual allegations and legal positions in support of the denial of the claim; “(f) That each of the parties has substantial evidence to support the fac- tual allegations of that party;…”

Safstrom v. Riedel Int'l, Inc., 672 P.2d 392 (Or. Ct. App. 1983). “An employer cannot stop making payments for temporary disability before the worker’s condition is medically stationary.”

Comp. of Jones v. State Accident Ins. Fund Corp., 619 P.2d 1342 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). “The Board has made no determination on that issue. Although we do not now decide the question, we recognize the possibility that SAIF will not be able to recover whatever temporary total disability payments are made during the remand.”

Evanite Fiber Corp. v. Striplin, 781 P.2d 1262 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). “McCall Insulation, 93 Or App 188, 190 , 761 P2d 6 (1988), aff’d 308 Or 74 , 775 P2d 316 (1989); see also ORS 656.313(3). However, an employer may not deny its future responsibility for payment of benefits relating to a previously accepted claim, unless it follows the statutory…”

SAIF Corp. v. Mize, 879 P.2d 907 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). “SAIF cites no authority, and we find none, that requires an employer or insurer to issue a written acceptance of a claim after a Board order.”

SAIF Corp. v. Johnson, 781 P.2d 374 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 5× “Defendant *67 responds that the review provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law are exclusive and adequate.”

Rak v. State Accident Ins. Fund, 570 P.2d 384 (Or. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 6× “Paul Koch, Volkswagen, 28 Or App 513 , 559 P2d 1305 , Sup Ct review denied (1977), that: " * * * The clear intent of ORS 656.313 is to require the immediate payment of all compensation due by virtue of the order when the order is entered * * 28 Or App at 517 .”

Reed v. Del Chem. Corp., 554 P.2d 586 (Or. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 3× “Further, if a penalty were considered "compensation,” the provisions of ORS 656.313(2) would relieve a claimant from repaying a penalty paid to him pending review even when the penalty is subsequently held improper.”

Liberty Nw. Ins. Corp. v. Koitzsch, 964 P.2d 1071 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 4×

State Accident Ins. Fund Corp. v. Gatti, 694 P.2d 1020 (Or. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 10×

Foster Wheeler Constructors, Inc. v. Parker, 939 P.2d 52 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 5× “On December 14, 1994, while the reconsideration of the determination order closing the claim and review of AU Peterson’s order overturning the back-up denial still were pending, ALJ Thye held that employer was obligated to pay time-loss benefits through the medically stationary…”

Vega v. Express Servs., 927 P.2d 1106 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 5×

Leech v. Georgia-Pac. Corp., 458 P.2d 438 (Or. 1969).

Bird v. Bohemia, Inc., 846 P.2d 1210 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 8×

State Ex Rel. Huntington, Etc. v. Sulmonetti, 557 P.2d 641 (Or. 1976).

Georgia-Pac. Corp. v. Hughes, 736 P.2d 602 (Or. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 3×

Bell v. Hartman, 604 P.2d 1273 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2×

Giltner v. SAIF, 529 P.3d 986 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2×

EBI Companies v. Freschette, 692 P.2d 723 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). ““IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there are no group medical insurance carriers which require notice of this settlement pursuant to ORS 656.313(3). Claimant agrees to hold this carrier harmless if such a group carrier exists which requires notice.”

Pac. Hosp. Ass'n v. Marchbanks, 756 P.2d 648 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 4× “The claim was denied and, pursuant to ORS 656.313(3), plaintiff was required to and did pay defendant’s medical bills that were part of his workers’ compensation claim.”

Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Miller, 760 P.2d 1317 (Or. 1988).

Sullivan v. Banister Pipeline Am., 756 P.2d 54 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “The Board held that, by virtue of ORS 656.313(2), employer was not entitled to offset most of the overpayment.”

Horn v. Timber Prods., Inc., 507 P.2d 36 (Or. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 2×

Hunter v. Teledyne Wah Chang, 755 P.2d 146 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 3×

Weyerhaeuser Co. v. McCullough, 757 P.2d 871 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 3×

Lloyd v. Emp. Benefits Ins., 773 P.2d 798 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 3×

Wacker Siltronic Corp. v. Satcher, 798 P.2d 264 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 3×

Richmond v. SAIF Corp., 737 P.2d 135 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).

S-M Motor Co. v. Mather, 900 P.2d 1079 (Or. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 8×

Hunter v. Teledyne Wah Chang, 745 P.2d 427 (Or. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2×

EBI Companies v. Moore, 750 P.2d 1194 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).

Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Rencehausen, 757 P.2d 860 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).

SAIF Corp. v. Vanlanen, 852 P.2d 281 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).

State Accident Ins. Fund Corp. v. Maddox, 655 P.2d 214 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 6×

Sisters of Providence v. East, 858 P.2d 155 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 6×

Hinkley v. Oregon State Police, 885 P.2d 756 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 6× “Claimant contends that, under the provisions of ORS 656.313(1)(B), he is entitled to interest each month on the remaining compensation due until the entire amount was paid in July, 1993.”

Eggert v. SAIF, 301 Or. App. 177 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 3×

Giltner v. SAIF (Or. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2×

Fink v. Metro. Pub. Def., 670 P.2d 194 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).

United Med. Labs. v. Bohnke, 724 P.2d 884 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).

Roberts v. Willamette Indus., 728 P.2d 60 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).

Owen v. Pozzi, Wilson, Atchison, O'Leary & Conboy, 853 P.2d 314 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). “…Or 661, 682 , 233 P2d 242 (1951). Affirmed. Effective May 7, 1990, the legislature provided for interest on benefits. ORS 656.313(l)(b).”

BCI Coca Cola Bottling Co. v. Adamson, 39 P.3d 886 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2×

EBI Companies v. Dep't of Ins. & Fin., 834 P.2d 539 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 3×

Matter of Comp. of Rencehausen, 757 P.2d 860 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).

Madden v. SAIF Corp., 669 P.2d 1158 (Or. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2×

Kordon v. Mercer Indus., 778 P.2d 958 (Or. 1989).

Hannum v. EBI Companies, 732 P.2d 29 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).

Parker v. D. R. Johnson Lumber Co., 763 P.2d 1194 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).

SAIF Corp. v. VanLanen, 873 P.2d 1090 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).

Larson v. State Comp. Dep't, 462 P.2d 694 (Or. Ct. App. 1969).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.313(1) — 34 cases

Providence Health Sys. v. Walker, 289 P.3d 256 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “Both parties contend that ORS 656.313 provides helpful context here.”

Norgard v. Rawlinsons & New Sys. Laundry, 569 P.2d 49 (Or. Ct. App. 1977). “Before the effective date of 1977 statutory amendments, circuit courts had the statutory authority to review decisions of the Board.”

State Accident Ins. Fund Corp. v. Maddox, 667 P.2d 529 (Or. 1983). “In rejecting SAIF’s argument that ORS chapter 19 applies to appeals from the Workers’ Compensation Board we conclude that ORS 656.313 is controlling on the issue raised in this case.”

Haret v. State Accident Ins. Fund Corp., 697 P.2d 201 (Or. Ct. App. 1985). “" There is no provision for interest. When it is considered that other provisions of the act permit a worker to keep money paid to him or her, even though it is ultimately determined that the worker was not entitled to the compensation, ORS 656.”

Georgia-Pac. Corp. v. Piwowar, 753 P.2d 948 (Or. 1988). “Georgia-Pacific also relies on ORS 656.313 as authority for terminating compensation payments awarded in a determination order pending a hearing on the order.”

Georgia-Pac. Corp. v. Hughes, 751 P.2d 775 (Or. 1988). “For the reasons set out below, we affirm the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that awards of interim compensation are subject to ORS 656.313, but reverse the reinstatement of that portion of the penalty stricken by the Board.”

Hutchinson v. Louisiana-Pac. Corp., 679 P.2d 338 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). “ORS 656.313(1) requires an employer to continue payments even though an appeal has been filed.”

SAIF Corp. v. Roles, 826 P.2d 1039 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). “See ORS 656.313(1) (since amended by Or Laws 1990, ch 2, § 23).”

Armstrong v. Rogue Fed. Credit Union, 969 P.2d 382 (Or. 1998). “262(2) (workers’ compensation is payable “except where the right to compensation is denied by the insurer or self-insured employer”); ORS 656.313(1) (employer can suspend duty to pay compensation by requesting hearing, requesting Board review, appealing to a court, or requesting…”

Roseburg Forest Prods. v. McDonald, 841 P.2d 697 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). “313(1) 4 provides: “Filing by an employer or the insurer of a request for review or court appeal shall not stay payment of compensation to a claimant.”

State Accident Ins. Fund Corp. v. Casteel, 703 P.2d 1039 (Or. Ct. App. 1985). “ORS 656.313 provides: "(1) Filing by an employer or the insurer of a request for review or court appeal shall not stay payment of compensation to a claimant.”

Tattoo v. Barrett Bus. Serv., 847 P.2d 872 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). “) 2 Temporary rule OAR 436-60-150(6)(c) was revised in 1992 to provide that the appeal must be pursuant to ORS 656.313. This provision was not in effect at the time of this proceeding.”

Atchley v. GTE Metal Erectors, 945 P.2d 557 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). “We affirmed, holding that, because the claimant’s right to temporary disability benefits during the pendency of appeal arose directly from an earlier version of ORS 656.313(1), his entitlement to such benefits was unconditional, and payment was required regardless of the outcome…”

State Accident Ins. Fund Corp. v. Mathews, 639 P.2d 668 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). “The answer depends on whether ORS 656.313, as amended by Oregon Laws 1979, chapter 673, section l, 1 applies to a case in which the compensable injury arose before the effective date of the amendment.”

Anodizing, Inc. v. Heath, 879 P.2d 218 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). “In awarding temporary benefits pending the decision on its request for hearing, the Board relied on ORS 656.313, which provides, in part: “(l)(a) Filing by an employer or the insurer of a request for hearing on a reconsideration order * * * stays payment of the compensation…”

Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Roller, 737 P.2d 625 (Or. Ct. App. 1987). “The Supreme Court relied on ORS 656.313 to support its conclusion that an employer may be required to litigate the question of the extent of disability while the issue of compensability is pending.”

Jeld-Wen, Inc. v. Bartz, 921 P.2d 419 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). “*436 On May 17, 1994, the Board affirmed the ALJ’s October 18,1993, order requiring employer to pay temporary total disability benefits pursuant to ORS 656.313(1). Employer did not petition for judicial review of the Board’s order.”

State Accident Ins. Fund Corp. v. Casteel, 719 P.2d 853 (Or. 1986). “The Court of Appeals held that SAIF’s payments preceding the court’s ultimate award of 50 percent permanent partial disability benefits did not count toward that award by virtue of ORS 656.313, which provides that when compensation is disallowed or reduced on review or appeal,…”

Liberty Nw. Ins. v. Cotner, 939 P.2d 62 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). “Accordingly, because ORS 656.313-(l)(a)(A) itself does not create entitlement to such benefits, the Board lacked authority to order employer to pay them while review was pending.”

Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Miller, 760 P.2d 1317 (Or. 1988).

Colclasure v. Washington Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 48-J, 843 P.2d 953 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). “313(4), namely death and permanent total disability, temporary total disability and permanent partial disability. As the Board’s opinion explains, the payments that were included under former ORS 656.”

Vega v. Express Servs., 927 P.2d 1106 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).

Georgia-Pac. Corp. v. Hughes, 736 P.2d 602 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).

State Accident Ins. Fund Corp. v. Gatti, 694 P.2d 1020 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).

Hunter v. Teledyne Wah Chang, 755 P.2d 146 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).

Horn v. Timber Prods., Inc., 507 P.2d 36 (Or. Ct. App. 1973).

Bird v. Bohemia, Inc., 846 P.2d 1210 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).

SAIF Corp. v. Vanlanen, 873 P.2d 1086 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). “Goss, 120 Or App 390 , 852 P2d 915 , rev den 317 Or 583 (1993), was in error and that, in any event, our conclusion that payment of benefits awarded by a determination order was stayed under ORS 656.313 was wrong. We allow reconsideration and adhere to our former opinion.”

Eggert v. SAIF, 301 Or. App. 177 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).

BCI Coca Cola Bottling Co. v. Adamson, 39 P.3d 886 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).

State Accident Ins. Fund Corp. v. Maddox, 655 P.2d 214 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).

EBI Companies v. Dep't of Ins. & Fin., 834 P.2d 539 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).

Sisters of Providence v. East, 858 P.2d 155 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).

Hannum v. EBI Companies, 732 P.2d 29 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.313(1)(B) — 1 case

Hinkley v. Oregon State Police, 885 P.2d 756 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). “Claimant contends that, under the provisions of ORS 656.313(1)(B), he is entitled to interest each month on the remaining compensation due until the entire amount was paid in July, 1993.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.313(1)(a) — 1 case

Providence Health Sys. v. Walker, 289 P.3d 256 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “Both parties contend that ORS 656.313 provides helpful context here.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.313(1)(a)(A) — 1 case

Providence Health Sys. v. Walker, 289 P.3d 256 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “Both parties contend that ORS 656.313 provides helpful context here.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.313(1)(b) — 1 case

Providence Health Sys. v. Walker, 289 P.3d 256 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “Both parties contend that ORS 656.313 provides helpful context here.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.313(2) — 9 cases

Hutchinson v. Louisiana-Pac. Corp., 679 P.2d 338 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). “ORS 656.313(1) requires an employer to continue payments even though an appeal has been filed.”

Reed v. Del Chem. Corp., 554 P.2d 586 (Or. Ct. App. 1976). “Further, if a penalty were considered "compensation,” the provisions of ORS 656.313(2) would relieve a claimant from repaying a penalty paid to him pending review even when the penalty is subsequently held improper.”

Sullivan v. Banister Pipeline Am., 756 P.2d 54 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). “The Board held that, by virtue of ORS 656.313(2), employer was not entitled to offset most of the overpayment.”

SAIF Corp. v. Johnson, 781 P.2d 374 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). “Defendant *67 responds that the review provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law are exclusive and adequate.”

State Accident Ins. Fund Corp. v. Gatti, 694 P.2d 1020 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).

Fink v. Metro. Pub. Def., 670 P.2d 194 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).

EBI Companies v. Dep't of Ins. & Fin., 834 P.2d 539 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.313(3) — 10 cases

Providence Health Sys. v. Walker, 289 P.3d 256 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “Both parties contend that ORS 656.313 provides helpful context here.”

Pac. Hosp. Ass'n v. Marchbanks, 756 P.2d 648 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). “The claim was denied and, pursuant to ORS 656.313(3), plaintiff was required to and did pay defendant’s medical bills that were part of his workers’ compensation claim.”

Richmond v. SAIF Corp., 737 P.2d 135 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).

Lloyd v. Emp. Benefits Ins., 773 P.2d 798 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).

EBI Companies v. Moore, 750 P.2d 1194 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).

Roberts v. Willamette Indus., 728 P.2d 60 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).

State Accident Ins. Fund Corp. v. Maddox, 655 P.2d 214 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.313(4) — 12 cases

Georgia-Pac. Corp. v. Piwowar, 738 P.2d 225 (Or. Ct. App. 1987). “313(4), because the referee had determined that claimant had no permanent compensable disability.”

Georgia-Pac. Corp. v. Hughes, 736 P.2d 602 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).

Lloyd v. Emp. Benefits Ins., 773 P.2d 798 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).

Wacker Siltronic Corp. v. Satcher, 798 P.2d 264 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).

Parker v. D. R. Johnson Lumber Co., 763 P.2d 1194 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.313(4)(a) — 1 case

Providence Health Sys. v. Walker, 289 P.3d 256 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “Both parties contend that ORS 656.313 provides helpful context here.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.313(4)(b) — 1 case

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.313(l)(a) — 6 cases

Diamond Fruit Growers v. Goss, 852 P.2d 915 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). “The Board concluded that employer was not entitled to stay payment of compensation under amended ORS 656.313. 1 It reasoned that ORS 656.313, as amended by Oregon Laws 1990, chapter 2, section 23, provides that the filing by an employer of a request for hearing on a…”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.313(l)(a)(A) — 4 cases

Foster Wheeler Constructors, Inc. v. Parker, 939 P.2d 52 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). “On December 14, 1994, while the reconsideration of the determination order closing the claim and review of AU Peterson’s order overturning the back-up denial still were pending, ALJ Thye held that employer was obligated to pay time-loss benefits through the medically stationary…”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.313(l)(b) — 2 cases

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.