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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.319 (2026)

Time within which hearing must be requested

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

      656.319 Time within which hearing must be requested. (1) With respect to objection by a claimant to denial of a claim for compensation under ORS 656.262, a hearing thereon shall not be granted and the claim shall not be enforceable unless:

      (a) A request for hearing is filed not later than the 60th day after the mailing of the denial to the claimant; or

      (b) The request is filed not later than the 180th day after mailing of the denial and the claimant establishes at a hearing that there was good cause for failure to file the request by the 60th day after mailing of the denial.

      (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, a hearing shall be granted even if a request therefor is filed after the time specified in subsection (1) of this section if the claimant can show lack of mental competency to file the request within that time. The period for filing under this subsection shall not be extended more than five years by lack of mental competency, nor shall it extend in any case longer than one year after the claimant regains mental competency.

      (3) With respect to subsection (2) of this section, lack of mental competency shall apply only to an individual suffering from such mental disorder, mental illness or nervous disorder as is required for commitment or voluntary admission to a treatment facility pursuant to ORS 426.005 to 426.223 and 426.273 to 426.380 and the rules of the Oregon Health Authority.

      (4) With respect to objections to a reconsideration order under ORS 656.268, a hearing on such objections shall not be granted unless a request for hearing is filed within 30 days after the copies of the reconsideration order were mailed to the parties.

      (5) With respect to objection by a claimant to a notice of refusal to close a claim under ORS 656.268, a hearing on the objection shall not be granted unless the request for hearing is filed within 60 days after copies of the notice of refusal to close were mailed to the parties.

      (6) A hearing for failure to process or an allegation that the claim was processed incorrectly shall not be granted unless the request for hearing is filed within two years after the alleged action or inaction occurred.

      (7) With respect to objection by a claimant to a notice of closure issued under ORS 656.206, a hearing on the objection shall not be granted unless the request for hearing is filed within 60 days after the notice of closure was mailed to the claimant. [1965 c.285 §41a; 1969 c.206 §1; 1975 c.497 §4; 1983 c.819 §1; 1987 c.884 §14; 1990 c.2 §24; 1995 c.332 §39; 2005 c.461 §6; 2009 c.595 §1041]

 

      656.320 [Amended by 1953 c.428 §2; 1965 c.285 §48; renumbered 656.591]

 

      656.322 [Amended by 1953 c.428 §2; 1955 c.656 §1; 1959 c.644 §1; 1965 c.285 §49; renumbered 656.593]

 

      656.324 [Amended by 1965 c.285 §50; renumbered 656.595]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 124 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1968–2026 · leading case: Brown v. EBI Companies, 616 P.2d 457 (Or. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Brown v. EBI Companies, 616 P.2d 457 (Or. 1980). · cites it 16× “Leek Leiberan, of Lang, Klein, Wolf, Smith, Griffith & Hallmark, Portland, argued the cause and filed a brief for respondents. LINDE, Justice. Petitioner's claim for workers' compensation was denied by her employer, and the denial was affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board…”
Sekermestrovich v. State Accident Ins. Fund, 573 P.2d 275 (Or. 1977). · cites it 11× “The time for filing a request for a hearing is regulated by ORS 656.319, which provides, in part: "(1) With respect to objection by a claimant to denial of a claim for compensation under ORS 656.”
Saif Corp. v. Allen, 881 P.2d 773 (Or. 1994). · cites it 8× “The worker may request a hearing pursuant to ORS 656.319.[ [16] ] "(9) Merely paying or providing compensation shall not be considered acceptance of a claim or an admission of liability, nor shall mere acceptance of such compensation be considered a waiver of the right to…”
Anderson v. Publishers Paper Co., 717 P.2d 635 (Or. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 15× “However, it is difficult to believe that the Supreme Court in Brown intended to say that, although our review under the Workers' Compensation Act is de novo, judicial review of whether good cause exists or not under ORS 656.319 is limited by the Administrative Procedures Act as…”
Ogden Aviation v. Lay, 921 P.2d 1321 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 14× “Curtis, 107 Or App 625 , 813 P2d 1112 (1991), we discussed our standard of review of the Board’s determination of “good cause” under ORS 656.319. In particular, we concluded that, notwithstanding a history of review-, ing such determinations de novo, our review was properly…”
Wright v. Bekins Moving & Storage Co., 775 P.2d 857 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 14× “ORS 656.319 then provided, as it does today, for a claimant to request a hearing within the 60-day and 180-day periods from the time when he is notified of the denial.”
Giusti Wine Co. v. Adams, 794 P.2d 451 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 20× “The Wright court has recently reasoned that such a principle is directly contrary to the Supreme Court's interpretation of ORS 656.319(1) in Norton v. Compensation Department, [ supra ].”
Reynolds Metals v. Rogers, 967 P.2d 1251 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 8× “283(1) provides, in part: “Subject to ORS 656.319, any party * * * may at anytime request a hearing on any matter concerning a claim, except matters for which a procedure for resolving the dispute is provided in another statute, including ORS 656.”
Drews v. EBI Companies, 795 P.2d 531 (Or. 1990). · cites it 2× “283(1) in part provided: “Subject to * * * ORS 656.319, any party or the director may at any time request a hearing on any question concerning a claim.”
Teitelman v. SAIF, 374 Or. 271 (Or. 2025). · cites it 17× “ORS 656.319(1) (a). A written notice of a denial is considered “a key proce- dural component of the claim adjudication system.”
Arvidson v. Liberty Nw. Ins. Corp., 467 P.3d 741 (Or. 2020). · cites it 3× “268 and ORS 656.319 have been amended since claimant was injured; however, because those amendments do not affect our analysis, we refer to the current version of those statutes in this opinion.”
Bakker v. Baza'r, Inc., 551 P.2d 1269 (Or. 1976). · cites it 2× “" The majority then, however, proceeds to consider the merits of the case, and properly so, because plaintiff did specifically object to the supplemental answer on the ground of "timeliness," thus raising that basic question for decision.”
Show all 124 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.319(1) — 45 cases
Wright v. Bekins Moving & Storage Co., 775 P.2d 857 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). “ORS 656.319 then provided, as it does today, for a claimant to request a hearing within the 60-day and 180-day periods from the time when he is notified of the denial.”
Ogden Aviation v. Lay, 921 P.2d 1321 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). “Curtis, 107 Or App 625 , 813 P2d 1112 (1991), we discussed our standard of review of the Board’s determination of “good cause” under ORS 656.319. In particular, we concluded that, notwithstanding a history of review-, ing such determinations de novo, our review was properly…”
Giusti Wine Co. v. Adams, 794 P.2d 451 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). “The Wright court has recently reasoned that such a principle is directly contrary to the Supreme Court's interpretation of ORS 656.319(1) in Norton v. Compensation Department, [ supra ].”
Brown v. EBI Companies, 616 P.2d 457 (Or. 1980). “Leek Leiberan, of Lang, Klein, Wolf, Smith, Griffith & Hallmark, Portland, argued the cause and filed a brief for respondents. LINDE, Justice. Petitioner's claim for workers' compensation was denied by her employer, and the denial was affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board…”
Teitelman v. SAIF, 374 Or. 271 (Or. 2025). “ORS 656.319(1) (a). A written notice of a denial is considered “a key proce- dural component of the claim adjudication system.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.319(1)(a) — 10 cases
Teitelman v. SAIF, 374 Or. 271 (Or. 2025). “ORS 656.319(1) (a). A written notice of a denial is considered “a key proce- dural component of the claim adjudication system.”
Wright v. Bekins Moving & Storage Co., 775 P.2d 857 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). “ORS 656.319 then provided, as it does today, for a claimant to request a hearing within the 60-day and 180-day periods from the time when he is notified of the denial.”
Madewell v. Salvation Army, 620 P.2d 953 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).
Roller v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 683 P.2d 554 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
State Ex Rel. Huntington, Etc. v. Sulmonetti, 557 P.2d 641 (Or. 1976).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.319(1)(b) — 15 cases
Brown v. EBI Companies, 616 P.2d 457 (Or. 1980). “Leek Leiberan, of Lang, Klein, Wolf, Smith, Griffith & Hallmark, Portland, argued the cause and filed a brief for respondents. LINDE, Justice. Petitioner's claim for workers' compensation was denied by her employer, and the denial was affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board…”
Anderson v. Publishers Paper Co., 717 P.2d 635 (Or. Ct. App. 1986). “However, it is difficult to believe that the Supreme Court in Brown intended to say that, although our review under the Workers' Compensation Act is de novo, judicial review of whether good cause exists or not under ORS 656.319 is limited by the Administrative Procedures Act as…”
Giusti Wine Co. v. Adams, 794 P.2d 451 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). “The Wright court has recently reasoned that such a principle is directly contrary to the Supreme Court's interpretation of ORS 656.319(1) in Norton v. Compensation Department, [ supra ].”
Ogden Aviation v. Lay, 921 P.2d 1321 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). “Curtis, 107 Or App 625 , 813 P2d 1112 (1991), we discussed our standard of review of the Board’s determination of “good cause” under ORS 656.319. In particular, we concluded that, notwithstanding a history of review-, ing such determinations de novo, our review was properly…”
Sayers v. Emp. Div., State of Oregon, 650 P.2d 1024 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.319(1)(d) — 1 case
Nelson v. State Accident Ins. Fund, 602 P.2d 341 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.319(2) — 11 cases
Oregon State Employes Ass'n v. Workers' Comp. Dep't, 624 P.2d 1078 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
Norton v. State Comp. Dep't, 448 P.2d 382 (Or. 1968).
Barr v. EBI Companies, 744 P.2d 582 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
Bebout v. State Accident Ins. Fund, 537 P.2d 563 (Or. Ct. App. 1975).
Farmers Ins. v. Hopson, 631 P.2d 342 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.319(2)(a) — 2 cases
Sekermestrovich v. State Accident Ins. Fund, 573 P.2d 275 (Or. 1977). “The time for filing a request for a hearing is regulated by ORS 656.319, which provides, in part: "(1) With respect to objection by a claimant to denial of a claim for compensation under ORS 656.”
Fulop v. Oregonian Publ'g Co., 498 P.2d 801 (Or. Ct. App. 1972).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.319(4) — 7 cases
Arvidson v. Liberty Nw. Ins. Corp., 467 P.3d 741 (Or. 2020). “268 and ORS 656.319 have been amended since claimant was injured; however, because those amendments do not affect our analysis, we refer to the current version of those statutes in this opinion.”
SAIF Corp. v. Roles, 826 P.2d 1039 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
Duffour v. Portland Cmty. Coll., 389 P.3d 1162 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
Duncan v. Liberty Nw. Ins. Corp., 894 P.2d 477 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).
EBI Ins. v. Chandler, 828 P.2d 1047 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.319(6) — 7 cases
Reynolds Metals v. Rogers, 967 P.2d 1251 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). “283(1) provides, in part: “Subject to ORS 656.319, any party * * * may at anytime request a hearing on any matter concerning a claim, except matters for which a procedure for resolving the dispute is provided in another statute, including ORS 656.”
French-Davis v. Grand Cent. Bowl, 62 P.3d 865 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
Providence Health Sys. v. Walker, 289 P.3d 256 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
Swint v. City of Springfield, 472 P.3d 800 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
Hamilton v. SAIF Corp., 365 P.3d 1116 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.319(l)(a) — 10 cases
Barr v. EBI Companies, 744 P.2d 582 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
Meza v. Bruce Packing Co., 63 P.3d 1193 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
SAIF Corp. v. Curtis, 813 P.2d 1112 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
Hamilton v. SAIF Corp., 365 P.3d 1116 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
SAIF Corp. v. Edison, 844 P.2d 261 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.319(l)(b) — 11 cases
Sekermestrovich v. State Accident Ins. Fund, 573 P.2d 275 (Or. 1977). “The time for filing a request for a hearing is regulated by ORS 656.319, which provides, in part: "(1) With respect to objection by a claimant to denial of a claim for compensation under ORS 656.”
Brown v. EBI Companies, 616 P.2d 457 (Or. 1980). “Leek Leiberan, of Lang, Klein, Wolf, Smith, Griffith & Hallmark, Portland, argued the cause and filed a brief for respondents. LINDE, Justice. Petitioner's claim for workers' compensation was denied by her employer, and the denial was affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board…”
Ogden Aviation v. Lay, 921 P.2d 1321 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). “Curtis, 107 Or App 625 , 813 P2d 1112 (1991), we discussed our standard of review of the Board’s determination of “good cause” under ORS 656.319. In particular, we concluded that, notwithstanding a history of review-, ing such determinations de novo, our review was properly…”
Mendoza v. SAIF Corp., 859 P.2d 582 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
Anderson v. Publishers Paper Co., 717 P.2d 635 (Or. Ct. App. 1986). “However, it is difficult to believe that the Supreme Court in Brown intended to say that, although our review under the Workers' Compensation Act is de novo, judicial review of whether good cause exists or not under ORS 656.319 is limited by the Administrative Procedures Act as…”
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.