Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.704

Actions and orders regarding matters concerning claim and matters other than matters concerning claim; authority of director and board; administrative and judicial review; rules

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      656.704 Actions and orders regarding matters concerning claim and matters other than matters concerning claim; authority of director and board; administrative and judicial review; rules. (1) Actions and orders of the Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services regarding matters concerning a claim under this chapter, and administrative and judicial review of those matters, are subject to the procedural provisions of this chapter and such procedural rules as the Workers’ Compensation Board may prescribe.

      (2)(a) A party dissatisfied with an action or order regarding a matter other than a matter concerning a claim under this chapter may request a hearing on the matter in writing to the director. The director shall refer the request for hearing to the Workers’ Compensation Board for a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. Review of an order issued by the Administrative Law Judge shall be by the director and the director shall issue a final order that is subject to judicial review as provided by ORS 183.480 to 183.497.

      (b) The director shall prescribe the classes of orders issued under this subsection by Administrative Law Judges and other personnel that are final, appealable orders and those orders that are preliminary orders subject to revision by the director.

      (3)(a) For the purpose of determining the respective authority of the director and the board to conduct hearings, investigations and other proceedings under this chapter, and for determining the procedure for the conduct and review thereof, matters concerning a claim under this chapter are those matters in which a worker’s right to receive compensation, or the amount thereof, are directly in issue. However, subject to paragraph (b) of this subsection, such matters do not include any disputes arising under ORS 656.245, 656.247, 656.248, 656.260 or 656.327, any other provisions directly relating to the provision of medical services to workers or any disputes arising under ORS 656.340 except as those provisions may otherwise provide.

      (b) The respective authority of the board and the director to resolve medical service disputes shall be determined according to the following principles:

      (A) Any dispute that requires a determination of the compensability of the medical condition for which medical services are proposed is a matter concerning a claim.

      (B) Any dispute that requires a determination of whether medical services are excessive, inappropriate, ineffectual or in violation of the rules regarding the performance of medical services, or a determination of whether medical services for an accepted condition qualify as compensable medical services among those listed in ORS 656.245 (1)(c), is not a matter concerning a claim.

      (C) Any dispute that requires a determination of whether a sufficient causal relationship exists between medical services and an accepted claim to establish compensability is a matter concerning a claim.

      (c) Notwithstanding ORS 656.283 (3), if parties to a hearing scheduled before an Administrative Law Judge are involved in a dispute regarding both matters concerning a claim and matters not concerning a claim, the Administrative Law Judge may defer any action on the matter concerning a claim until the director has completed an administrative review of the matters other than those concerning a claim. The director shall mail a copy of the administrative order to the parties and to the Administrative Law Judge. A party may request a hearing on the order of the director. At the request of a party or by the own motion of the Administrative Law Judge, the hearings on the separate matters may be consolidated. The Administrative Law Judge shall issue an order for those matters concerning a claim and a separate order for matters other than those concerning a claim.

      (4) Hearings under ORS 656.740 shall be conducted by an Administrative Law Judge from the board’s Hearings Division.

      (5) If a request for hearing or administrative review is filed with either the director or the board and it is determined that the request should have been filed with the other, the dispute shall be transferred. Filing a request will be timely filed if the original filing was completed within the prescribed time. [1965 c.285 §54b; 1977 c.804 §23; 1979 c.839 §16; 1981 c.874 §11; 1985 c.770 §8; 1987 c.373 §38a; 1990 c.2 §37; 1995 c.332 §50; 1999 c.849 §§121a,121c,121e; 1999 c.876 §4; 1999 c.926 §2; 2003 c.75 §48; 2005 c.26 §15; 2009 c.35 §5]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 92 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1971–2025 · leading case: Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Rich
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Rich (2006) orctapp · cites it 17× “ORS 656.704 allocates authority between the division and the board to adjudicate disputes brought by parties who are dissatisfied with an action or order of the division.”
Daugherty v. SAIF Corp. (2013) orctapp · cites it 20× “Although the parties advance a number of ancillary arguments, the central issue presented on review is whether, under ORS 656.704, 1 the director had authority to determine that “there [was] no factual dispute” concerning the causal relationship between claimant’s requested…”
Martin v. City of Albany (1994) or · cites it 6× “*179 Insurer contends that the Board had no authority to hold the requested hearing by operation of two statutes, ORS 656.704(3) and 656.327(1), (2). ORS 656.”
Meyers v. Darigold, Inc. (1993) orctapp · cites it 27× “The majority acknowledges that ORS 656.704 does concern the respective jurisdiction of the Board and the Director, but reasons that you do not get into a question of respective jurisdiction unless one of the parties invokes the Director's jurisdiction.”
SAIF Corp. v. Martinez (2008) orctapp · cites it 5× “ORS 656.704; AIG Claim Services v. Cole, 205 Or App 170, 178 , 133 P3d 357 , rev den, 341 Or 244 (2006).”
AIG Claim Services Inc. v. Cole (2006) orctapp · cites it 21× “” ORS 656.704 was amended in 2005, Or Laws 2005, ch 26, § 15, but those amendments are not applicable to this case.”
Schlecht v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp. (1982) orctapp · cites it 8× “The board argues that this court has no jurisdiction to consider the appeal because, under ORS 656.704, 3 orders of the board “other than those, concerning a claim” are subject to the review provisions in the Administrative Procedures Act (ORS 183.”
Rash v. McKinstry Co. (2001) or · cites it 5× “For its part, insurer argues that the definition of “matters concerning a claim” in ORS 656.704(3) controls the interpretation of the word “matters” in ORS 656.”
Icenhower v. SAIF Corp. (2002) orctapp · cites it 4× “283(6) (requiring record of "all proceedings at the hearing" before the ALJ); ORS 656.704 (application of Oregon Administrative Procedures Act in contested case "proceedings"); ORS 656.”
SAIF Corp. v. Bales (2015) orctapp · cites it 8× “245(6) provides: “Subject to the provisions of ORS 656.704, if a claim for medical services is disapproved, the injured worker, insurer or self-insured employer may request administrative review by the director pursuant to ORS 656.”
Zach v. Chartis Claims, Inc. (2016) orctapp · cites it 6× “*560 That initial order is subject to review under ORS 656.704, which allows a dissatisfied party to request a hearing before an ALJ.”
Arvidson v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. (2020) or · cites it 2× “10 Rather, insurer’s argument 90 ORS 656.704 has been amended since claimant was injured; however, because those amendments do not affect our analysis, we refer to the current version of the statute in this opinion.”
Show all 92 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.704(1) — 9 cases
Compensation of Harris v. SAIF Corp. (1982) or
SAIF Corp. v. Wright (1991) or
Deaton v. Hunt-Elder (1996) orctapp
Amos v. SAIF Corp. (1985) orctapp
Farmers Insurance Group v. SAIF Corp. (1986) or
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.704(2) — 13 cases
Renolds-Croft, Inc. v. Bill Morrison Co. (1982) orctapp
Zach v. Chartis Claims, Inc. (2016) orctapp “*560 That initial order is subject to review under ORS 656.704, which allows a dissatisfied party to request a hearing before an ALJ.”
State Accident Insurance Fund Corp. v. Broadway Cab Co. (1981) orctapp
Bob Wilkes Falling, Inc. v. Filings of the National Council on Compensation Insurance (1994) orctapp
Southern Oregon Neurological Associates v. EBI Companies (1990) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.704(2)(a) — 6 cases
Zach v. Chartis Claims, Inc. (2016) orctapp “*560 That initial order is subject to review under ORS 656.704, which allows a dissatisfied party to request a hearing before an ALJ.”
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Rich (2006) orctapp “ORS 656.704 allocates authority between the division and the board to adjudicate disputes brought by parties who are dissatisfied with an action or order of the division.”
Hibbs v. Sedwick CMS (A180289) (2025) orctapp
JRP Construction Enterprises, Inc. v. Department of Consumer Business Services (2015) orctapp
Hibbs v. Sedwick CMS (A180289) (2025) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.704(3) — 44 cases
Martin v. City of Albany (1994) or “*179 Insurer contends that the Board had no authority to hold the requested hearing by operation of two statutes, ORS 656.704(3) and 656.327(1), (2). ORS 656.”
Meyers v. Darigold, Inc. (1993) orctapp “The majority acknowledges that ORS 656.704 does concern the respective jurisdiction of the Board and the Director, but reasons that you do not get into a question of respective jurisdiction unless one of the parties invokes the Director's jurisdiction.”
Rash v. McKinstry Co. (2001) or “For its part, insurer argues that the definition of “matters concerning a claim” in ORS 656.704(3) controls the interpretation of the word “matters” in ORS 656.”
Hathaway v. Health Future Enterprises (1994) or
Icenhower v. SAIF Corp. (2002) orctapp “283(6) (requiring record of "all proceedings at the hearing" before the ALJ); ORS 656.704 (application of Oregon Administrative Procedures Act in contested case "proceedings"); ORS 656.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.704(3)(a) — 13 cases
Rash v. McKinstry Co. (2001) or “For its part, insurer argues that the definition of “matters concerning a claim” in ORS 656.704(3) controls the interpretation of the word “matters” in ORS 656.”
Arvidson v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. (2020) or “10 Rather, insurer’s argument 90 ORS 656.704 has been amended since claimant was injured; however, because those amendments do not affect our analysis, we refer to the current version of the statute in this opinion.”
Speciality Risk Services v. Royal Indemnity Co. (2007) orctapp
SAIF Corp. v. Bales (2015) orctapp “245(6) provides: “Subject to the provisions of ORS 656.704, if a claim for medical services is disapproved, the injured worker, insurer or self-insured employer may request administrative review by the director pursuant to ORS 656.”
Hibbs v. Sedwick CMS (A180289) (2025) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.704(3)(b) — 4 cases
SAIF Corp. v. Martinez (2008) orctapp “ORS 656.704; AIG Claim Services v. Cole, 205 Or App 170, 178 , 133 P3d 357 , rev den, 341 Or 244 (2006).”
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Rich (2006) orctapp “ORS 656.704 allocates authority between the division and the board to adjudicate disputes brought by parties who are dissatisfied with an action or order of the division.”
AIG Claim Services Inc. v. Cole (2006) orctapp “” ORS 656.704 was amended in 2005, Or Laws 2005, ch 26, § 15, but those amendments are not applicable to this case.”
Mantle v. SAIF (2024) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.704(3)(b)(A) — 5 cases
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Rich (2006) orctapp “ORS 656.704 allocates authority between the division and the board to adjudicate disputes brought by parties who are dissatisfied with an action or order of the division.”
SAIF Corp. v. Bales (2015) orctapp “245(6) provides: “Subject to the provisions of ORS 656.704, if a claim for medical services is disapproved, the injured worker, insurer or self-insured employer may request administrative review by the director pursuant to ORS 656.”
AIG Claim Services Inc. v. Cole (2006) orctapp “” ORS 656.704 was amended in 2005, Or Laws 2005, ch 26, § 15, but those amendments are not applicable to this case.”
Kachel v. Weyerhaeuser Co. (2006) orctapp
Mantle v. SAIF (2024) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.704(3)(b)(B) — 7 cases
AIG Claim Services Inc. v. Cole (2006) orctapp “” ORS 656.704 was amended in 2005, Or Laws 2005, ch 26, § 15, but those amendments are not applicable to this case.”
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Rich (2006) orctapp “ORS 656.704 allocates authority between the division and the board to adjudicate disputes brought by parties who are dissatisfied with an action or order of the division.”
Brown v. SAIF Corp. (2014) orctapp
SAIF Corp. v. Bales (2015) orctapp “245(6) provides: “Subject to the provisions of ORS 656.704, if a claim for medical services is disapproved, the injured worker, insurer or self-insured employer may request administrative review by the director pursuant to ORS 656.”
Hibbs v. Sedgwick CMS (A180280) (2025) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.704(3)(b)(C) — 7 cases
SAIF Corp. v. Martinez (2008) orctapp “ORS 656.704; AIG Claim Services v. Cole, 205 Or App 170, 178 , 133 P3d 357 , rev den, 341 Or 244 (2006).”
Daugherty v. SAIF Corp. (2013) orctapp “Although the parties advance a number of ancillary arguments, the central issue presented on review is whether, under ORS 656.704, 1 the director had authority to determine that “there [was] no factual dispute” concerning the causal relationship between claimant’s requested…”
AIG Claim Services Inc. v. Cole (2006) orctapp “” ORS 656.704 was amended in 2005, Or Laws 2005, ch 26, § 15, but those amendments are not applicable to this case.”
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Rich (2006) orctapp “ORS 656.704 allocates authority between the division and the board to adjudicate disputes brought by parties who are dissatisfied with an action or order of the division.”
SAIF Corp. v. Bales (2015) orctapp “245(6) provides: “Subject to the provisions of ORS 656.704, if a claim for medical services is disapproved, the injured worker, insurer or self-insured employer may request administrative review by the director pursuant to ORS 656.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.704(3)(c) — 1 case
Mantle v. SAIF (2024) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.704(5) — 3 cases
Daugherty v. SAIF Corp. (2013) orctapp “Although the parties advance a number of ancillary arguments, the central issue presented on review is whether, under ORS 656.704, 1 the director had authority to determine that “there [was] no factual dispute” concerning the causal relationship between claimant’s requested…”
SAIF Corp. v. Bales (2015) orctapp “245(6) provides: “Subject to the provisions of ORS 656.704, if a claim for medical services is disapproved, the injured worker, insurer or self-insured employer may request administrative review by the director pursuant to ORS 656.”
Mantle v. SAIF (2024) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.704(l)(a) — 1 case
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Rich (2006) orctapp “ORS 656.704 allocates authority between the division and the board to adjudicate disputes brought by parties who are dissatisfied with an action or order of the division.”
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.