656.383
Attorney fees in cases prior to decision or after request for hearing. The claimant’s attorney shall be
allowed a reasonable assessed attorney fee if:
(1) The claimant’s
attorney is instrumental in obtaining temporary disability compensation
benefits pursuant to ORS 656.210, 656.212, 656.262, 656.268 or 656.325 prior to
a decision by an Administrative Law Judge; or
(2) The claimant
finally prevails in a dispute over temporary disability compensation benefits
pursuant to ORS 656.210, 656.212, 656.262, 656.268 or 656.325 after a request
for hearing has been filed. [2015 c.521 §10]
Note: 656.383 was added to and made a
part of ORS chapter 656 by legislative action but was not added to any smaller
series therein. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation.
656.384 [Formerly 656.582; 1977 c.290 §4;
1977 c.804 §13; repealed by 1987 c.250 §1]
Notes of Decisions
Gonzalez v. Schrock Cabinet Co., 4 P.3d 74 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 4× “When the Board's action effectively reinstated the RRU order denying benefits, claimant filed his request for a contested case hearing within 60 days, as required by ORS 656.383(2). We find no basis on which to say that the Director's interpretation that the rule did not apply…”
Barr v. EBI Companies, 744 P.2d 582 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
“We applied the holding in Norton : “Claimant argues that under ORS 656.383(2), the mailing of the request [for a hearing] within the one-year period was sufficient.”
Dancingbear v. SAIF, 500 P.3d 22 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 37× “Furthermore, the legislative history of ORS 656.383 con- firms that understanding.”
Shook v. Pac. Communities Hosp., 980 P.2d 161 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
“In November 1997, claimant’s attorney filed a request for hearing with the Workers’ Compensation Hearings Division, asserting an entitlement to fees under ORS 656.383(2). That request described counsel’s considerable efforts in “establishing claimant’s right to surgery” and…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.383(1) — 1 case
Dancingbear v. SAIF, 500 P.3d 22 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“Furthermore, the legislative history of ORS 656.383 con- firms that understanding.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.383(2) — 4 cases
Gonzalez v. Schrock Cabinet Co., 4 P.3d 74 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“When the Board's action effectively reinstated the RRU order denying benefits, claimant filed his request for a contested case hearing within 60 days, as required by ORS 656.383(2). We find no basis on which to say that the Director's interpretation that the rule did not apply…”
Barr v. EBI Companies, 744 P.2d 582 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
“We applied the holding in Norton : “Claimant argues that under ORS 656.383(2), the mailing of the request [for a hearing] within the one-year period was sufficient.”
Shook v. Pac. Communities Hosp., 980 P.2d 161 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
“In November 1997, claimant’s attorney filed a request for hearing with the Workers’ Compensation Hearings Division, asserting an entitlement to fees under ORS 656.383(2). That request described counsel’s considerable efforts in “establishing claimant’s right to surgery” and…”
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.