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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.587 (2026)

Paying agency must join in any compromise

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

      656.587 Paying agency must join in any compromise. Any compromise by the worker or other beneficiaries or the legal representative of the deceased worker of any right of action against an employer or third party is void unless made with the written approval of the paying agency or, in the event of a dispute between the parties, by order of the Workers’ Compensation Board. [Formerly 656.318; 1990 c.2 §34]

 

      656.588 [Amended by 1957 c.558 §1; 1965 c.285 §42a; renumbered 656.386]

 

      656.590 [Amended by 1965 c.285 §42b; renumbered 656.388]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1978–2022 · leading case: Weems v. Am. Int'l Adjustment Co., 874 P.2d 72 (Or. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Weems v. Am. Int'l Adjustment Co., 874 P.2d 72 (Or. 1994). · cites it 15× “In this workers’ compensation case, petitioners asked the Workers’ Compensation Board to approve, pursuant to ORS 656.587 (discussedposi), aproposed settlement of a third-party action to which a paying agency had refused to give its approval.”
Toole v. EBI Companies, 838 P.2d 60 (Or. 1992). · cites it 5× “ORS 656.587 provides: “Any compromise by the worker * * * of any right of action against [a] * * * third party is void unless made with the written approval of the paying agency or, in the event of a dispute between the parties, by order of the board.”
State Accident Ins. Fund Corp. v. Cowart, 672 P.2d 389 (Or. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 6× “1 The Board concluded that the matter was more accurately a dispute between claimant and SAIF regarding the compromise of claimant’s action against the third parties, which the Board had authority to approve under ORS 656.587. 2 It treated the proceeding as one arising on a…”
Vasquez v. Double Press Mfg., Inc., 437 P.3d 1107 (Or. 2019). “" And, pursuant to ORS 656.587 (1985), the injured worker could not settle an action against a third party without the written approval of the insurer or, if the insurer disputed the settlement, an order of the Workers' Compensation Board, thereby protecting the insurer's…”
SAIF Corp. v. Wright, 817 P.2d 1317 (Or. 1991). · cites it 2× “See ORS 656.587 (settlement between worker and third party *135 must have written approval of paying agency); ORS 656.”
Rash v. McKinstry Co., 20 P.3d 197 (Or. 2001). “580 (“action”); ORS 656.587 (same); ORS 656.591(1) (same).”
Toole ex rel. Prof'l Liab. Fund v. EBI Companies, 815 P.2d 216 (Or. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 5× “PLF argues that, under the third party recovery statutes, the Board had no jurisdiction over the settlement proceeds.”
Liberty Nw. Ins. Corp. v. Golden, 840 P.2d 1362 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “ORS 656.587. [1] Liberty does not dispute the Board's finding that, as the paying agency, it approved the settlement.”
Schlecht v. State Accident Ins. Fund Corp., 653 P.2d 1284 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). “ORS 656.587, 656.593(3). The statutes are also not aimed at maximizing recovery by claimants in third party actions.”
Argonaut Ins. v. Mock, 768 P.2d 401 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). “Additionally, as Progress points out, it was unable to participate under ORS 656.587 in the settlement that claimant obtained from the other driver involved in the accident.”
Robertson v. Davcol, Inc., 783 P.2d 43 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “ORS 656.587 provides: “Any compromise by the worker or other beneficiaries or the legal representative of the deceased worker of any right of action against an employer or third party is void unless made with the written approval of the paying agency or, in the event of a…”
Scarino v. Saif Corp., 755 P.2d 139 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). “See ORS 656.587. When the approval was sought and given, it was understood by the parties that the entire amount of the proposed settlement was for the husband’s claim.”
Show all 21 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.587(2) — 1 case
Liberty Mut. Ins. v. Schwanenberg, 286 P.3d 905 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
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.