656.325
Required medical examination; worker-requested examination; qualified
physicians; claimant’s duty to reduce disability; suspension or reduction of
benefits; cessation or reduction of temporary total disability benefits; rules;
penalties. (1)(a)
Any worker entitled to receive compensation under this chapter is required, if
requested by the Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services,
the insurer or self-insured employer, to submit to a medical examination at a
time reasonably convenient for the worker as may be provided by the rules of
the director. No more than three independent medical examinations may be
requested except after notification to and authorization by the director. If
the worker refuses to submit to any such examination, or obstructs the same,
the rights of the worker to compensation shall be suspended with the consent of
the director until the examination has taken place, and no compensation shall
be payable during or for account of such period. The provisions of this
paragraph are subject to the limitations on medical examinations provided in
ORS 656.268.
(b) When a worker
is requested by the director, the insurer or self-insured employer to attend an
independent medical examination, the examination must be conducted by a
physician selected from a list of qualified physicians established by the
director under ORS 656.328.
(c) The director
shall adopt rules applicable to independent medical examinations conducted
pursuant to paragraph (a) of this subsection that:
(A) Provide a
worker the opportunity to request review by the director of the reasonableness
of the location selected for an independent medical examination. Upon receipt
of the request for review, the director shall conduct an expedited review of
the location selected for the independent medical examination and issue an
order on the reasonableness of the location of the examination. The director
shall determine if there is substantial evidence for the objection to the
location for the independent medical examination based on a conclusion that the
required travel is medically contraindicated or other good cause establishing
that the required travel is unreasonable. The determinations of the director
about the location of independent medical examinations are not subject to
review.
(B) Impose a
monetary penalty against a worker who fails to attend an independent medical
examination without prior notification or without justification for not
attending the examination. A penalty imposed under this subparagraph may be
imposed only on a worker who is not receiving temporary disability benefits
under ORS 656.210 or 656.212. An insurer or self-insured employer may offset
any future compensation payable to the worker to recover any penalty imposed
under this subparagraph from a claim with the same insurer or self-insured
employer. When a penalty is recovered from temporary disability or permanent
total disability benefits, the amount recovered from each payment may not
exceed 25 percent of the benefit payment without prior authorization from the
worker.
(C) Impose a
sanction against a medical service provider that unreasonably fails to provide
in a timely manner diagnostic records required for an independent medical
examination.
(d)
Notwithstanding ORS 656.262 (6), if the director determines that the location
selected for an independent medical examination is unreasonable, the insurer or
self-insured employer shall accept or deny the claim within 90 days after the
employer has notice or knowledge of the claim.
(e) If the worker
has made a timely request for a hearing on a denial of compensability as
required by ORS 656.319 (1)(a) that is based on one or more reports of
examinations conducted pursuant to paragraph (a) of this subsection and the
worker’s attending physician or nurse practitioner authorized to provide
compensable medical services under ORS 656.245 does not concur with the report
or reports, the worker may request an examination to be conducted by a
physician selected by the director from the list described in ORS 656.328. The
cost of the examination and the examination report shall be paid by the insurer
or self-insured employer.
(f) The insurer
or self-insured employer shall pay the costs of the medical examination and
related services which are reasonably necessary to allow the worker to submit
to any examination requested under this section. As used in this paragraph, “related
services” includes, but is not limited to, child care, travel, meals, lodging
and an amount equivalent to the worker’s net lost wages for the period during
which the worker is absent if the worker does not receive benefits pursuant to
ORS 656.210 (4) during the period of absence. A claim for “related services”
described in this paragraph shall be made in the manner prescribed by the
director.
(g) A worker who
objects to the location of an independent medical examination must request
review by the director under paragraph (c)(A) of this subsection within six
business days of the date the notice of the independent medical examination was
mailed.
(2) For any
period of time during which any worker commits insanitary or injurious
practices which tend to either imperil or retard recovery of the worker, or
refuses to submit to such medical or surgical treatment as is reasonably
essential to promote recovery, or fails to participate in a program of physical
rehabilitation, the right of the worker to compensation shall be suspended with
the consent of the director and no payment shall be made for such period. The
period during which such worker would otherwise be entitled to compensation may
be reduced with the consent of the director to such an extent as the disability
has been increased by such refusal.
(3) A worker who
has received an award for permanent total or permanent partial disability
should be encouraged to make a reasonable effort to reduce the disability; and
the award shall be subject to periodic examination and adjustment in conformity
with ORS 656.268.
(4) When the
employer of an injured worker, or the employer’s insurer determines that the
injured worker has failed to follow medical advice from the attending physician
or nurse practitioner authorized to provide compensable medical services under
ORS 656.245 or has failed to participate in or complete physical restoration or
vocational rehabilitation programs prescribed for the worker pursuant to this
chapter, the employer or insurer may petition the director for reduction of any
benefits awarded the worker. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
chapter, if the director finds that the worker has failed to accept treatment
as provided in this subsection, the director may reduce any benefits awarded
the worker by such amount as the director considers appropriate.
(5)(a) Except as
provided by ORS 656.268 (4)(c) and (11), an insurer or self-insured employer
shall cease making payments pursuant to ORS 656.210 and shall commence making
payment of such amounts as are due pursuant to ORS 656.212 when an injured
worker refuses wage earning employment prior to claim determination and the
worker’s attending physician or nurse practitioner authorized to provide
compensable medical services under ORS 656.245, after being notified by the
employer of the specific duties to be performed by the injured worker, agrees
that the injured worker is capable of performing the employment offered.
(b) If the worker
has been terminated for violation of work rules or other disciplinary reasons,
the insurer or self-insured employer shall cease payments pursuant to ORS
656.210 and commence payments pursuant to ORS 656.212 when the attending
physician or nurse practitioner authorized to provide compensable medical
services under ORS 656.245 approves employment in a modified job that would
have been offered to the worker if the worker had remained employed, provided
that the employer has a written policy of offering modified work to injured
workers.
(c) If the worker
is a person present in the United States in violation of federal immigration
laws, the insurer or self-insured employer shall cease payments pursuant to ORS
656.210 and commence payments pursuant to ORS 656.212 when the attending physician
or nurse practitioner authorized to provide compensable medical services under
ORS 656.245 approves employment in a modified job whether or not such a job is
available.
(6) Any party may
request a hearing on any dispute under this section pursuant to ORS 656.283. [Formerly
656.280; 1977 c.804 §12; 1977 c.868 §4; 1979 c.839 §29; 1981 c.535 §10; 1981
c.723 §4; 1981 c.854 §23; 1983 c.816 §8; 1985 c.770 §7; 1987 c.884 §43; 1989
c.598 §1; 1990 c.2 §25; 1995 c.332 §40; 2001 c.865 §13; 2003 c.657 §§11,12;
2003 c.811 §§13,14; 2005 c.675 §§1,2; 2007 c.274 §6; 2007 c.365 §7; 2011 c.99 §4]
656.326 [Amended by 1965 c.285 §51;
renumbered 656.597]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
88
cases (
11 in the last 5 years), 1970–2025 · leading case:
Carr v. SAIF Corp., 670 P.2d 1037 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
Carr v. SAIF Corp., 670 P.2d 1037 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 40× “Claimant seeks review of an order of the Workers' Compensation Board, affirming the suspension of his temporary total disability benefits under ORS 656.325 and the administrative rules adopted thereunder, because claimant failed to attend a medical examination scheduled for him…”
Lewis v. CIGNA Ins., 121 P.3d 1128 (Or. 2005).
· cites it 17× “Applying the maxim of statutory construction that, between inconsistent statutes, the more specific statute controls the more general statute, the Court of Appeals determined that suspension of the payment of compensation of the claimant’s claim under ORS 656.325 was not…”
Jordan v. SAIF Corp., 167 P.3d 451 (Or. 2007).
· cites it 15× “Claimant argued that, instead, ORS 656.325 governed suspension of his temporary disability payments.”
Teitelman v. SAIF, 374 Or. 271 (Or. 2025).
· cites it 42× “But, at the time of the decision on claimant’s WRME request, SAIF’s continuing denial was based on an IME report because the IME had been conducted, the resulting report supported SAIF’s denial, and SAIF had confirmed that it intended to rely on the report to defend its denial…”
Robinson v. Nabisco, Inc., 11 P.3d 1286 (Or. 2000).
· cites it 9× “Only one person is subject to the duty to submit to a CME: a worker entitled to receive compensation. The predicate for any CME is a work-related injury or disease that entitles the worker to receive compensation.”
Walker v. Providence Health Sys. Oregon, 340 P.3d 91 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 18× “On June 11, 2009, claimant’s attorney wrote to employer again advising that claimant would not attend the IME with Davies, because Davies was not a physician who was authorized to conduct IMEs pursuant to ORS 656.325, and requesting claim closure.”
Cutright v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 702 P.2d 403 (Or. 1985).
· cites it 6× “Finally, of greatest significance is ORS 656.325(5), which provides: "Notwithstanding ORS 656.”
SAIF v. Coria, 528 P.3d 785 (Or. 2023).
· cites it 7× “SAIF’s cessation of TTD benefits was based on ORS 656.325 (5)(b), which requires an insurer to cease TTD benefits 4 SAIF v.”
Darling v. Johnson Controls Battery Grp., Inc., 70 P.3d 894 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 17× “Inconsistently with claimant’s expressed continuing willingness to submit to an orthopedic examination, claimant further urged that ORS 656.325(1) did not give employer the authority to request her to submit to an IME once employer denied the claim.”
Hibbs v. Sedwick CMS (A180289), 340 Or. App. 431 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 39× “” Claimant asserts that the board erred “in determin- ing that it did not have jurisdiction over a dispute under ORS 656.325 that involved whether an insurer improperly requested more than three [IMEs] without first notifying and obtaining authorization from the director.”
Nelson v. EBI Companies, 666 P.2d 1360 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 16× “325(4) "directly" under the circumstances of this case, analogized that statute to common law principles pertaining to the duty of one who has suffered personal injury to minimize his damage: [5] "None of the provisions of ORS 656.325 directly pertain to the issue in this case.”
Morales v. SAIF Corp., 124 P.3d 1233 (Or. 2005).
· cites it 36× “325(5)(b) to an accepted aggravation claim, denying [claimant] the protection of temporary disability benefits afforded by the workers’ compensation statutes.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.325(1) — 24 cases
Robinson v. Nabisco, Inc., 11 P.3d 1286 (Or. 2000).
“Only one person is subject to the duty to submit to a CME: a worker entitled to receive compensation. The predicate for any CME is a work-related injury or disease that entitles the worker to receive compensation.”
Walker v. Providence Health Sys. Oregon, 340 P.3d 91 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“On June 11, 2009, claimant’s attorney wrote to employer again advising that claimant would not attend the IME with Davies, because Davies was not a physician who was authorized to conduct IMEs pursuant to ORS 656.325, and requesting claim closure.”
Darling v. Johnson Controls Battery Grp., Inc., 70 P.3d 894 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“Inconsistently with claimant’s expressed continuing willingness to submit to an orthopedic examination, claimant further urged that ORS 656.325(1) did not give employer the authority to request her to submit to an IME once employer denied the claim.”
Carr v. SAIF Corp., 670 P.2d 1037 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
“Claimant seeks review of an order of the Workers' Compensation Board, affirming the suspension of his temporary total disability benefits under ORS 656.325 and the administrative rules adopted thereunder, because claimant failed to attend a medical examination scheduled for him…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.325(1)(a) — 11 cases
Lewis v. CIGNA Ins., 121 P.3d 1128 (Or. 2005).
“Applying the maxim of statutory construction that, between inconsistent statutes, the more specific statute controls the more general statute, the Court of Appeals determined that suspension of the payment of compensation of the claimant’s claim under ORS 656.325 was not…”
Darling v. Johnson Controls Battery Grp., Inc., 70 P.3d 894 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“Inconsistently with claimant’s expressed continuing willingness to submit to an orthopedic examination, claimant further urged that ORS 656.325(1) did not give employer the authority to request her to submit to an IME once employer denied the claim.”
Teitelman v. SAIF, 374 Or. 271 (Or. 2025).
“But, at the time of the decision on claimant’s WRME request, SAIF’s continuing denial was based on an IME report because the IME had been conducted, the resulting report supported SAIF’s denial, and SAIF had confirmed that it intended to rely on the report to defend its denial…”
Hibbs v. Sedwick CMS (A180289), 340 Or. App. 431 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“” Claimant asserts that the board erred “in determin- ing that it did not have jurisdiction over a dispute under ORS 656.325 that involved whether an insurer improperly requested more than three [IMEs] without first notifying and obtaining authorization from the director.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.325(1)(b) — 2 cases
Teitelman v. SAIF, 374 Or. 271 (Or. 2025).
“But, at the time of the decision on claimant’s WRME request, SAIF’s continuing denial was based on an IME report because the IME had been conducted, the resulting report supported SAIF’s denial, and SAIF had confirmed that it intended to rely on the report to defend its denial…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.325(1)(c) — 2 cases
Lewis v. CIGNA Ins., 121 P.3d 1128 (Or. 2005).
“Applying the maxim of statutory construction that, between inconsistent statutes, the more specific statute controls the more general statute, the Court of Appeals determined that suspension of the payment of compensation of the claimant’s claim under ORS 656.325 was not…”
Darling v. Johnson Controls Battery Grp., Inc., 70 P.3d 894 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“Inconsistently with claimant’s expressed continuing willingness to submit to an orthopedic examination, claimant further urged that ORS 656.325(1) did not give employer the authority to request her to submit to an IME once employer denied the claim.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.325(1)(e) — 5 cases
Teitelman v. SAIF, 374 Or. 271 (Or. 2025).
“But, at the time of the decision on claimant’s WRME request, SAIF’s continuing denial was based on an IME report because the IME had been conducted, the resulting report supported SAIF’s denial, and SAIF had confirmed that it intended to rely on the report to defend its denial…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.325(2) — 7 cases
Jordan v. SAIF Corp., 167 P.3d 451 (Or. 2007).
“Claimant argued that, instead, ORS 656.325 governed suspension of his temporary disability payments.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.325(3) — 8 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.325(4) — 7 cases
Nelson v. EBI Companies, 666 P.2d 1360 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
“325(4) "directly" under the circumstances of this case, analogized that statute to common law principles pertaining to the duty of one who has suffered personal injury to minimize his damage: [5] "None of the provisions of ORS 656.325 directly pertain to the issue in this case.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.325(5) — 8 cases
Cutright v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 702 P.2d 403 (Or. 1985).
“Finally, of greatest significance is ORS 656.325(5), which provides: "Notwithstanding ORS 656.”
Morales v. SAIF Corp., 124 P.3d 1233 (Or. 2005).
“325(5)(b) to an accepted aggravation claim, denying [claimant] the protection of temporary disability benefits afforded by the workers’ compensation statutes.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.325(5)(a) — 7 cases
Morales v. SAIF Corp., 124 P.3d 1233 (Or. 2005).
“325(5)(b) to an accepted aggravation claim, denying [claimant] the protection of temporary disability benefits afforded by the workers’ compensation statutes.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.325(5)(b) — 8 cases
SAIF v. Coria, 528 P.3d 785 (Or. 2023).
“SAIF’s cessation of TTD benefits was based on ORS 656.325 (5)(b), which requires an insurer to cease TTD benefits 4 SAIF v.”
Morales v. SAIF Corp., 124 P.3d 1233 (Or. 2005).
“325(5)(b) to an accepted aggravation claim, denying [claimant] the protection of temporary disability benefits afforded by the workers’ compensation statutes.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.325(5)(c) — 3 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.325(6) — 7 cases
Carr v. SAIF Corp., 670 P.2d 1037 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
“Claimant seeks review of an order of the Workers' Compensation Board, affirming the suspension of his temporary total disability benefits under ORS 656.325 and the administrative rules adopted thereunder, because claimant failed to attend a medical examination scheduled for him…”
Hibbs v. Sedwick CMS (A180289), 340 Or. App. 431 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“” Claimant asserts that the board erred “in determin- ing that it did not have jurisdiction over a dispute under ORS 656.325 that involved whether an insurer improperly requested more than three [IMEs] without first notifying and obtaining authorization from the director.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.325(l)(a) — 10 cases
Lewis v. CIGNA Ins., 121 P.3d 1128 (Or. 2005).
“Applying the maxim of statutory construction that, between inconsistent statutes, the more specific statute controls the more general statute, the Court of Appeals determined that suspension of the payment of compensation of the claimant’s claim under ORS 656.325 was not…”
Robinson v. Nabisco, Inc., 11 P.3d 1286 (Or. 2000).
“Only one person is subject to the duty to submit to a CME: a worker entitled to receive compensation. The predicate for any CME is a work-related injury or disease that entitles the worker to receive compensation.”
Walker v. Providence Health Sys. Oregon, 340 P.3d 91 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“On June 11, 2009, claimant’s attorney wrote to employer again advising that claimant would not attend the IME with Davies, because Davies was not a physician who was authorized to conduct IMEs pursuant to ORS 656.325, and requesting claim closure.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.325(l)(b) — 2 cases
Robinson v. Nabisco, Inc., 11 P.3d 1286 (Or. 2000).
“Only one person is subject to the duty to submit to a CME: a worker entitled to receive compensation. The predicate for any CME is a work-related injury or disease that entitles the worker to receive compensation.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.325(l)(c)(A) — 1 case
Walker v. Providence Health Sys. Oregon, 340 P.3d 91 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“On June 11, 2009, claimant’s attorney wrote to employer again advising that claimant would not attend the IME with Davies, because Davies was not a physician who was authorized to conduct IMEs pursuant to ORS 656.325, and requesting claim closure.”
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.