656.390
Frivolous appeals, hearing requests or motions; expenses and attorney fee. (1) Notwithstanding ORS 656.236,
if either party requests a hearing before the Hearings Division, requests
review of an Administrative Law Judge’s decision before the Workers’
Compensation Board, appeals for review of the claim to the Court of Appeals or
to the Supreme Court, or files a motion for reconsideration of the decision of
the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, and the Administrative Law Judge,
board or court finds that the appeal or motion for reconsideration was
frivolous or was filed in bad faith or for the purpose of harassment, the
Administrative Law Judge, board or court may impose an appropriate sanction
upon the attorney who filed the request for hearing, request for review, appeal
or motion. The sanction may include an order to pay to the other party the
amount of the reasonable expenses incurred by reason of the request for
hearing, request for review, appeal or motion, including a reasonable attorney
fee.
(2) As used in
this section, “frivolous” means the matter is not supported by substantial
evidence or the matter is initiated without reasonable prospect of prevailing. [1987
c.884 §31; 1995 c.332 §45]
656.401 [1965 c.285 §74; 1967 c.359 §699;
repealed by 1975 c.556 §25 (656.403 enacted in lieu of 656.401)]
656.402 [Renumbered 656.712]
SELF-INSURED AND
CARRIER-INSURED EMPLOYERS; INSURERS
Notes of Decisions
Westfall v. Rust Int'l & Underwriters Adjusting Co., 840 P.2d 700 (Or. 1992).
· cites it 19× “This case involves the interpretation and application of ORS 656.390, a provision of the Workers’ Compensation Law providing for the imposition of sanctions against a lawyer who files a frivolous petition for judicial review or motion for reconsideration in connection with a…”
Seely v. Hanson, 857 P.2d 121 (Or. 1993).
· cites it 6× “In Westfall, this court noted the distinction between the wording of the FRCP 11-based statute that it interpreted in that case, ORS 656.390, and the wording of ORS 20.105(1), interpreted and applied in Mattiza v.”
Liberty Nw. Ins. v. Hughes, 106 P.3d 687 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 10× “382, claimant filed a motion for award of sanctions under ORS 656.390. For the reasons that follow, we allow the motion for award of sanctions under ORS 656.”
Davis v. Armenakis, 948 P.2d 327 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 3× “Rust International, 314 Or 553 , 840 P2d 700 (1992), the Supreme Comí; defined “frivolous” in the context of the then current version of ORS 656.390, which authorized an award, including reasonable attorney fees to the opposing party, for a frivolous appeal of a workers’…”
Azorr v. Azorr, 47 P.3d 542 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 3× “There is no principled reason * * * to depart from the expressed policy decision already made * * * in John R.”
Fechtig v. City of Albany, 946 P.2d 280 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 3× “Similarly, ORS 656.390 provides for sanctions against a party who pursues frivolous reviews or appeals within the workers’ compensation system or who files a frivolous appeal or motion for reconsideration to the appellate courts in a workers’ compensation case.”
Young v. Hill, 218 P.3d 125 (Or. 2009).
“Rust International, 314 Or 553, 559 , 840 P2d 700 (1992) (interpreting ORS 656.390). Because the legislature used both “meritless” and “frivolous” in describing certain post-conviction petitions, we can infer that the legislature intended those two words to have different…”
McCarthy v. Oregon Freeze Dry, Inc., 46 P.3d 721 (Or. 2002).
“Rust International, 314 Or 553, 559 , 840 P2d 700 (1992) (stating and applying that standard under former ORS 656.390, which authorized sanctions for pursuit of frivolous appeal).”
Greenslitt v. City of Lake Oswego, 754 P.2d 570 (Or. 1988).
“382(3) (emphasis added), or if either party appeals to an appellate court and the appellate court finds that the appeal “was frivolous or was filed in bad faith or for the purpose of harassment,” ORS 656.390. However, there are no statutory provisions for the board to sanction a…”
Westfall v. Rust Int'l, 826 P.2d 64 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 9× “The court vacated our award of sanctions made pursuant to ORS 656.390 and remanded for further consideration in light of its opinion in Mattiza v.”
Westfall v. Rust Int'l, 812 P.2d 31 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 5× “236, if either party appeals for review of the claim to the Court of Appeals or to the Supreme Court, or files a motion for reconsideration of the decision of the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, and the court finds that the appeal or motion for reconsideration was…”
Bi-Mart Corp. v. Allen, 991 P.2d 1087 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 7× “Thereafter, employer moved for sanctions under ORS 656.390. 1 ■ Employer’s sole assignment of error is that “[the] Board erred when it failed to address the statutory definition of ‘frivolous’ in considering the employer’s request for sanctions pursuant to ORS 656.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.390(1) — 2 cases
Bi-Mart Corp. v. Allen, 991 P.2d 1087 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
“Thereafter, employer moved for sanctions under ORS 656.390. 1 ■ Employer’s sole assignment of error is that “[the] Board erred when it failed to address the statutory definition of ‘frivolous’ in considering the employer’s request for sanctions pursuant to ORS 656.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.390(2) — 4 cases
Davis v. Armenakis, 948 P.2d 327 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
“Rust International, 314 Or 553 , 840 P2d 700 (1992), the Supreme Comí; defined “frivolous” in the context of the then current version of ORS 656.390, which authorized an award, including reasonable attorney fees to the opposing party, for a frivolous appeal of a workers’…”
Liberty Nw. Ins. v. Hughes, 106 P.3d 687 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“382, claimant filed a motion for award of sanctions under ORS 656.390. For the reasons that follow, we allow the motion for award of sanctions under ORS 656.”
Bi-Mart Corp. v. Allen, 991 P.2d 1087 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
“Thereafter, employer moved for sanctions under ORS 656.390. 1 ■ Employer’s sole assignment of error is that “[the] Board erred when it failed to address the statutory definition of ‘frivolous’ in considering the employer’s request for sanctions pursuant to ORS 656.”
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.