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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.740 (2026)

Review of proposed order declaring noncomplying employer or nonsubjectivity determination; review of proposed assessment or civil penalty; insurer as party; hearing

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

      656.740 Review of proposed order declaring noncomplying employer or nonsubjectivity determination; review of proposed assessment or civil penalty; insurer as party; hearing. (1) A person may contest a proposed order of the Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services declaring that person to be a noncomplying employer, or a proposed assessment of civil penalty, by filing with the Department of Consumer and Business Services, within 60 days after the mailing of the order, a written request for a hearing. Such a request need not be in any particular form, but shall specify the grounds upon which the person contests the proposed order or assessment. An order by the director under this subsection is prima facie correct and the burden is upon the employer to prove that the order is incorrect.

      (2) A person may contest a nonsubjectivity determination of the director by filing a written request for hearing with the department within 60 days after the mailing of the determination.

      (3) When any insurance carrier, including the State Accident Insurance Fund Corporation, is alleged by an employer to have contracted to provide the employer with workers’ compensation coverage for the period in question, the Workers’ Compensation Board shall join such insurance carrier as a necessary party to any hearing relating to such employer’s alleged noncompliance or to any hearing relating to a nonsubjectivity determination and shall serve the carrier, at least 30 days prior to such hearing, with notice thereof.

      (4) A hearing relating to a nonsubjectivity determination, to a proposed order declaring a person to be a noncomplying employer, or to a proposed assessment of civil penalty under ORS 656.735, shall be held by an Administrative Law Judge of the board’s Hearings Division. However, a hearing shall not be granted unless a request for hearing is filed within the period specified in subsection (1) or (2) of this section, and if a request for hearing is not so filed, the nonsubjectivity determination, order or penalty, as proposed, shall be a final order of the department and shall not be subject to review by any agency or court.

      (5) Notwithstanding ORS 183.315 (1), the issuance of nonsubjectivity determinations, orders declaring a person to be a noncomplying employer or the assessment of civil penalties pursuant to this chapter, the conduct of hearings and the judicial review thereof shall be as provided in ORS chapter 183, except that:

      (a) The order of an Administrative Law Judge in a contested case shall be deemed to be a final order of the director.

      (b) The director shall have the same right to judicial review of the order of an Administrative Law Judge as any person who is adversely affected or aggrieved by such final order.

      (c) When a nonsubjectivity determination or an order declaring a person to be a noncomplying employer is contested at the same hearing as a matter concerning a claim pursuant to ORS 656.283 and 656.704, the review thereof shall be as provided for a matter concerning a claim.

      (6)(a) If a person against whom an order is issued pursuant to this section prevails at hearing or on appeal, the person is entitled to reasonable attorney fees to be paid by the director from the Workers’ Benefit Fund.

      (b) If a person against whom an order is issued is found to be a noncomplying employer by the director, but the person proves coverage pursuant to subsection (3) of this section and the insurer failed to file timely proof of coverage as required by ORS 656.419 or improperly canceled the person’s coverage, the employer is entitled to reasonable attorney fees paid by the insurer.

      (c) If a worker prevails at hearing or on appeal from a nonsubjectivity determination, the worker is entitled to reasonable attorney fees to be paid by the director from the Workers’ Benefit Fund and reimbursed by the employer. [1973 c.447 §5; 1975 c.341 §1; 1975 c.759 §19; 1977 c.804 §31; 1979 c.839 §22; 1983 c.816 §14; 1987 c.234 §3; 1995 c.332 §65a; 1995 c.641 §13; 1999 c.246 §1; 1999 c.1020 §2; 2003 c.170 §9; 2007 c.241 §19]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1974–2023 · leading case: SAIF Corp. v. Matt Jenkins Contracting, 306 P.3d 641 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
SAIF Corp. v. Matt Jenkins Contracting, 306 P.3d 641 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 8× “740(6)(b) requires an employer to prove coverage pursuant to ORS 656.740(3) as a predicate to an award of attorney fees under subsection (6) of the statute.”
Astleford v. Saif Corp., 858 P.2d 877 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 6× “’ ’ ORS 656.740 provides, in part: “(1) A person may contest a proposed order of the director declaring that person to be a noncomplying employer, * * * by filing with the department, within 20 days of receipt of notice thereof, a written request for a hearing.”
Dep't of Consum. & Bus. Servs. v. Zurich Am., 268 P.3d 671 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 7× “ORS 656.740(1). Within 60 days of receiving notice of a claim for a compensable injury by a subject worker of an alleged noncomplying employer, the director must refer the claim to an assigned claims agent, which is an insurer, casualty adjuster, or third-party administrator…”
Randall v. Ocean View Constr. Co., 100 P.3d 1088 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “ORS 656.740(5)(a). On review, claimant argues that the director erred in concluding that he is subject to a conclusive "presumption" that he is an independent contractor and not a subject worker within the meaning of the workers' compensation statutes.”
Schlecht v. State Accident Ins. Fund Corp., 653 P.2d 1284 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). “) We noted in Broadway Cab that the jurisdiction of the referees and the board could include matters not involving claims where there is an express statutory source of jurisdiction; however, we also noted: “* * * [W]e have been able to discern only two instances of what seems to…”
Astleford v. SAIF Corp., 874 P.2d 1329 (Or. 1994). “Employer did not contest the proposed order within the 20-day period provided by ORS 656.740. Pursuant to ORS 656.054(1), DIF referred the claim to the State Accident Insurance Fund Corporation (SAIF), which accepted it and notified Employer of its right to request a hearing.”
State Accident Ins. Fund Corp. v. Broadway Cab Co., 629 P.2d 829 (Or. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 2× “…a cease and desist order on Broadway, then the issue could have been tried in circuit court. ORS 656.052(3); see also ORS 656.740.”
Kelsey v. Drushella-Klohk NCE, 874 P.2d 1349 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 6× “ORS 656.740(4). Claimant was injured when he fell from the roof of a house that he was remodeling for respondents, who had purchased the house as a vacation home.”
Buckner v. Kennedy's Riding Academy, 526 P.2d 450 (Or. Ct. App. 1974). · cites it 2× “Kennedy, in his brief and on oral argument before this court, now argues also that the hearing officer and the Board were in error in finding that Kennedy was a noncomplying employer and that we should reverse because Kennedy is not a subject employer.”
Bovet v. Law, 164 P.3d 1186 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). “DCBS seeks judicial review of its own order pursuant to ORS 656.740(5), which provides, in part: “Notwithstanding ORS 183.”
King v. Dep't of Ins. & Fin., 867 P.2d 511 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 12× “’ ’ That subsection also provides that the proposed order is “prima facie correct” and “the burden is upon the employer to prove that the order is incorrect.”
Dep't of Consum. & Bus. Servs. v. Clements, 246 P.3d 62 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “1 DCBS seeks review of its own order pursuant to ORS 656.740(5), which provides, in part: “Notwithstanding ORS 183.”
Show all 31 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.740(1) — 8 cases
Astleford v. Saif Corp., 858 P.2d 877 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). “’ ’ ORS 656.740 provides, in part: “(1) A person may contest a proposed order of the director declaring that person to be a noncomplying employer, * * * by filing with the department, within 20 days of receipt of notice thereof, a written request for a hearing.”
Dep't of Consum. & Bus. Servs. v. Zurich Am., 268 P.3d 671 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “ORS 656.740(1). Within 60 days of receiving notice of a claim for a compensable injury by a subject worker of an alleged noncomplying employer, the director must refer the claim to an assigned claims agent, which is an insurer, casualty adjuster, or third-party administrator…”
Sports Clubs, LLC v. Emp. Dep't, 234 P.3d 136 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
Employers Ins. of Wausau v. RM Hardy & Co., 963 P.2d 97 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
King v. Dep't of Ins. & Fin., 867 P.2d 511 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). “’ ’ That subsection also provides that the proposed order is “prima facie correct” and “the burden is upon the employer to prove that the order is incorrect.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.740(2) — 3 cases
SAIF Corp. v. Robertson, 852 P.2d 212 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
Employers Ins. of Wausau v. RM Hardy & Co., 963 P.2d 97 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
Medi-Tech Int'l Corp. v. Kwiecinski, 371 P.3d 1285 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.740(3) — 10 cases
Schlecht v. State Accident Ins. Fund Corp., 653 P.2d 1284 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). “) We noted in Broadway Cab that the jurisdiction of the referees and the board could include matters not involving claims where there is an express statutory source of jurisdiction; however, we also noted: “* * * [W]e have been able to discern only two instances of what seems to…”
Dep't of Consum. & Bus. Servs. v. Zurich Am., 268 P.3d 671 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “ORS 656.740(1). Within 60 days of receiving notice of a claim for a compensable injury by a subject worker of an alleged noncomplying employer, the director must refer the claim to an assigned claims agent, which is an insurer, casualty adjuster, or third-party administrator…”
State Accident Ins. Fund Corp. v. Broadway Cab Co., 629 P.2d 829 (Or. Ct. App. 1981). “…a cease and desist order on Broadway, then the issue could have been tried in circuit court. ORS 656.052(3); see also ORS 656.740.”
SAIF Corp. v. Matt Jenkins Contracting, 306 P.3d 641 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “740(6)(b) requires an employer to prove coverage pursuant to ORS 656.740(3) as a predicate to an award of attorney fees under subsection (6) of the statute.”
In Re Comp. of Mccoy, 268 P.3d 671 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.740(4) — 4 cases
Kelsey v. Drushella-Klohk NCE, 874 P.2d 1349 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). “ORS 656.740(4). Claimant was injured when he fell from the roof of a house that he was remodeling for respondents, who had purchased the house as a vacation home.”
Salter v. SAIF Corp., 816 P.2d 1208 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
Swift & McCormick Metal Processors Ass'n v. Durbin, 845 P.2d 931 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
Hayes v. SAIF Corp., 889 P.2d 359 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.740(4)(a) — 4 cases
Kelsey v. Drushella-Klohk NCE, 874 P.2d 1349 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). “ORS 656.740(4). Claimant was injured when he fell from the roof of a house that he was remodeling for respondents, who had purchased the house as a vacation home.”
Employers Ins. of Wausau v. RM Hardy & Co., 963 P.2d 97 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
Ferland v. McMurtry Video Prods., 841 P.2d 1200 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
King v. Dep't of Ins. & Fin., 867 P.2d 511 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). “’ ’ That subsection also provides that the proposed order is “prima facie correct” and “the burden is upon the employer to prove that the order is incorrect.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.740(4)(c) — 4 cases
Kelsey v. Drushella-Klohk NCE, 874 P.2d 1349 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). “ORS 656.740(4). Claimant was injured when he fell from the roof of a house that he was remodeling for respondents, who had purchased the house as a vacation home.”
Hayes v. SAIF Corp., 889 P.2d 359 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).
Ferland v. McMurtry Video Prods., 841 P.2d 1200 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
SAIF Corp. v. Robertson, 852 P.2d 212 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.740(5) — 5 cases
Bovet v. Law, 164 P.3d 1186 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). “DCBS seeks judicial review of its own order pursuant to ORS 656.740(5), which provides, in part: “Notwithstanding ORS 183.”
Dep't of Consum. & Bus. Servs. v. Clements, 246 P.3d 62 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “1 DCBS seeks review of its own order pursuant to ORS 656.740(5), which provides, in part: “Notwithstanding ORS 183.”
King v. Dep't of Ins. & Fin., 867 P.2d 511 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). “’ ’ That subsection also provides that the proposed order is “prima facie correct” and “the burden is upon the employer to prove that the order is incorrect.”
DCBS v. Clements, 246 P.3d 62 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
Medi-Tech Int'l Corp. v. Kwiecinski, 371 P.3d 1285 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.740(5)(a) — 6 cases
Randall v. Ocean View Constr. Co., 100 P.3d 1088 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). “ORS 656.740(5)(a). On review, claimant argues that the director erred in concluding that he is subject to a conclusive "presumption" that he is an independent contractor and not a subject worker within the meaning of the workers' compensation statutes.”
Dep't of Consum. & Bus. Servs. v. Zurich Am., 283 P.3d 357 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
Medi-Tech Int'l Corp. v. Kwiecinski, 371 P.3d 1285 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
Royer v. Touch of Grey Ranch, 369 P.3d 1226 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
Mendoza v. Ron Dickson Corp., 327 Or. App. 692 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.740(6)(b) — 5 cases
SAIF Corp. v. Matt Jenkins Contracting, 306 P.3d 641 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “740(6)(b) requires an employer to prove coverage pursuant to ORS 656.740(3) as a predicate to an award of attorney fees under subsection (6) of the statute.”
Dep't of Consum. & Bus. Servs. v. Zurich Am., 268 P.3d 671 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “ORS 656.740(1). Within 60 days of receiving notice of a claim for a compensable injury by a subject worker of an alleged noncomplying employer, the director must refer the claim to an assigned claims agent, which is an insurer, casualty adjuster, or third-party administrator…”
SAIF Corp. v. Cross River Transp., Inc., 259 P.3d 1001 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
Dep't of Consum. & Bus. Servs. v. Zurich Am., 283 P.3d 357 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
In Re Comp. of Mccoy, 268 P.3d 671 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
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.