656.712
Workers’ Compensation Board; members; qualifications; chairperson;
confirmation; term; vacancies.
(1) The Workers’ Compensation Board, composed of five members appointed by the
Governor, is created within the Department of Consumer and Business Services.
Not more than three members shall belong to one political party and inasmuch as
the duties to be performed by the members vitally concern the employers, the
employees, as well as the whole people, of the state, persons shall be
appointed as members who fairly represent the interests of all concerned. All
board members shall impartially apply the law in each case and shall not
represent any special interest. However, at least two members shall be selected
from among persons with background and understanding as to the concerns of
employers and at least two members of the board shall be selected from among
persons with background and understanding as to the concerns of employees. One
member shall represent the interests of the public and shall serve as the board
chairperson.
(2) A member of
the board shall be appointed for a term of four years from the date of
appointment and qualification. Each member shall hold office until a successor
is appointed and qualified. However, all board members serve at the pleasure of
the Governor and may be removed in accordance with the provisions of ORS
656.714.
(3) Any vacancy
on the board shall be filled by appointment by the Governor.
(4) All
appointments of members of the board by the Governor are subject to
confirmation by the Senate pursuant to section 4, Article III of the Oregon
Constitution. [Formerly 656.402; 1973 c.792 §28; 1977 c.109 §3; 1977 c.804 §26;
1981 c.535 §43; 1987 c.373 §40; 1993 c.462 §1; 1995 c.332 §64; 1999 c.876 §5]
Notes of Decisions
Koskela v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 978 P.2d 1018 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “ORS 656.712 (1965). In place of a jury trial the circuit court would review the entire record.”
Booth v. Tektronix, Inc., 823 P.2d 402 (Or. 1991).
· cites it 2× “708 (1985), and now is within the Department of Insurance and Finance, ORS 656.712(1). The proceedings herein spanned the pre- and post-reorganization periods, a factor of no significance in this case.”
Fred Meyer Stores, Inc. v. Ernst, 79 P.3d 387 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 6× “Fred Meyer argues that the board abused its discretion in issuing those orders because (1) there was no employer representative, and (2) the board failed to give an adequate explanation for its sudden change of policy.”
Columbia Heating & Cooling, Inc. v. Bucher, 80 P.3d 544 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“” ORS 656.712(1). We affirm. The first assignment of error concerns the board’s finding that claimant did not have a combined condition.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.712(1) — 3 cases
Booth v. Tektronix, Inc., 823 P.2d 402 (Or. 1991).
“708 (1985), and now is within the Department of Insurance and Finance, ORS 656.712(1). The proceedings herein spanned the pre- and post-reorganization periods, a factor of no significance in this case.”
Fred Meyer Stores, Inc. v. Ernst, 79 P.3d 387 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“Fred Meyer argues that the board abused its discretion in issuing those orders because (1) there was no employer representative, and (2) the board failed to give an adequate explanation for its sudden change of policy.”
Columbia Heating & Cooling, Inc. v. Bucher, 80 P.3d 544 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“” ORS 656.712(1). We affirm. The first assignment of error concerns the board’s finding that claimant did not have a combined condition.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.712(3) — 1 case
Fred Meyer Stores, Inc. v. Ernst, 79 P.3d 387 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“Fred Meyer argues that the board abused its discretion in issuing those orders because (1) there was no employer representative, and (2) the board failed to give an adequate explanation for its sudden change of policy.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.712(4) — 1 case
Fred Meyer Stores, Inc. v. Ernst, 79 P.3d 387 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“Fred Meyer argues that the board abused its discretion in issuing those orders because (1) there was no employer representative, and (2) the board failed to give an adequate explanation for its sudden change of policy.”
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.