657.290
Continuous jurisdiction of director; reconsideration of previous decisions. (1) The Director of the Employment
Department, upon motion of the director or upon application of any party to a
claim for benefits, may at any time reconsider any final decision under this
chapter. Reconsideration may occur when there is evidence of:
(a) Errors of
computation;
(b) Clerical
errors;
(c)
Misinformation provided a party by the Employment Department;
(d) Facts not
previously known to the department; or
(e) Errors caused
by misapplication of law by the department.
(2) Such
reconsideration shall be accomplished by the director or any employee the
director may designate for the purpose, in accordance with such regulations as
the director may prescribe, and may include the making of a new decision which,
if made, shall award, deny, terminate, continue, increase or decrease benefits
to the extent found necessary and appropriate for the correction of previous
error respecting such benefits. However, any such new decision shall be subject
to hearing, review and appeal in accordance with ORS 657.265, 657.266 to
657.269 and 657.270 to 657.282.
(3) The
Employment Appeals Board upon its own motion or upon application of any party
in interest may in its discretion at any time after the same was made and
irrespective of whether it has become final under this chapter, reconsider any
previous decision of the Employment Appeals Board. Such reconsideration shall
be accomplished by the Employment Appeals Board or special referee designated
for the purpose and may include the making of a new decision to the extent
necessary and appropriate for the correction of previous error of fact or law.
Such new decision shall be subject to judicial review in accordance with ORS
657.282. [Amended by 1959 c.583 §20; 1961 c.252 §4; 1965 c.210 §4; 1975 c.257 §7;
1983 c.522 §5; 1985 c.565 §88; 1993 c.778 §10]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
20
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1959–2026 · leading case:
Trebesch v. Emp. Div., 710 P.2d 136 (Or. 1985).
Trebesch v. Emp. Div., 710 P.2d 136 (Or. 1985).
· cites it 4× “Depending upon how comprehensive the adjudicatory power is, the legislature may have envisioned that interpretations of law by orders in contested cases would provide an alternative to interpretations by rules.”
Johnson v. Emp. Div., 680 P.2d 386 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 6× “315(1)(b) read in conjunction with former ORS 657.290(1) [1] authorizes recoupment *388 in this case.”
Lovendahl v. Emp. Div., 554 P.2d 611 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).
· cites it 4× “ontention that the Division had no legal authority to reverse its prior decision, claimant argues as follows: The Division’s attempted reversal is based entirely on information which was actually in its possession at the time of the original decision (except for the medical…”
Heller v. Ebb Auto Co., 774 P.2d 1089 (Or. 1989).
· cites it 2× “ORS 657.290(3). 4 The Board may have denied the petition because it thought Title VII did not bear on “misconduct,” or because it thought that the “accommodation” standard was not violated, or because the record was insufficient to decide that question, or simply because, in its…”
Gearhart v. Emp. Div., 783 P.2d 536 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 2× “265 and of the administrator under ORS 657.290 to amend initial decisions regarding benefits.”
Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Clatsop Co.), 724 P.2d 805 (Or. 1986).
“Some agencies are given express authority to reconsider, amend, correct or modify orders that would otherwise be final or to monitor conditions over time to best implement a particular statutory scheme.”
Gearhart v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 299 P.3d 533 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
“We held that the law of the case doctrine did not apply and that the EAB’s authority to modify its findings and conclusions is controlled by ORS 657.290(3). Id. at 261 . We then quoted the statute, which provided that the EAB had discretion to reconsider its decisions, and…”
Philomath Forest Prods. Co. v. Emp. Div., 741 P.2d 912 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 11× “Smith, 64 Or App 33 , 666 P2d 1369 (1983), where we held that, under ORS 657.290(1) as it read at the time of our decision, the Employment Division had no authority to withdraw and amend an earlier decision to bring it into conformity with an agency policy.”
Mascorro v. Emp. Div., 689 P.2d 1326 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 2× “This argument ignores ORS 657.290(3), which allows EAB to reconsider a decision on application of a party and the fact that claimant’s first request for reconsideration was made within 30 days of the date of EAB’s decision.”
Emp. Div. v. Smith, 666 P.2d 1369 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 13× “EAB analyzed ORS 657.290 and OAR 471-30-039, concluded that the rule unlawfully expanded the statutory grounds on which the Division can amend its decisions and held that the Division had no power to amend its initial decisions here.”
Weyerhaeuser Timber Co. v. State Unemployment Comp. Comm'n, 342 P.2d 114 (Or. 1959).
“After the hearing before the Commission, there are no further administrative steps required since an application for reconsideration before the Commission (ORS 657.290) is but an optional right, and is not a necessary step by an aggrieved party seeking judicial review.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.290(1) — 6 cases
Trebesch v. Emp. Div., 710 P.2d 136 (Or. 1985).
“Depending upon how comprehensive the adjudicatory power is, the legislature may have envisioned that interpretations of law by orders in contested cases would provide an alternative to interpretations by rules.”
Johnson v. Emp. Div., 680 P.2d 386 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
“315(1)(b) read in conjunction with former ORS 657.290(1) [1] authorizes recoupment *388 in this case.”
Lovendahl v. Emp. Div., 554 P.2d 611 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).
“ontention that the Division had no legal authority to reverse its prior decision, claimant argues as follows: The Division’s attempted reversal is based entirely on information which was actually in its possession at the time of the original decision (except for the medical…”
Emp. Div. v. Smith, 666 P.2d 1369 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
“EAB analyzed ORS 657.290 and OAR 471-30-039, concluded that the rule unlawfully expanded the statutory grounds on which the Division can amend its decisions and held that the Division had no power to amend its initial decisions here.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.290(2) — 1 case
Trebesch v. Emp. Div., 710 P.2d 136 (Or. 1985).
“Depending upon how comprehensive the adjudicatory power is, the legislature may have envisioned that interpretations of law by orders in contested cases would provide an alternative to interpretations by rules.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.290(3) — 8 cases
Heller v. Ebb Auto Co., 774 P.2d 1089 (Or. 1989).
“ORS 657.290(3). 4 The Board may have denied the petition because it thought Title VII did not bear on “misconduct,” or because it thought that the “accommodation” standard was not violated, or because the record was insufficient to decide that question, or simply because, in its…”
Gearhart v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 299 P.3d 533 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
“We held that the law of the case doctrine did not apply and that the EAB’s authority to modify its findings and conclusions is controlled by ORS 657.290(3). Id. at 261 . We then quoted the statute, which provided that the EAB had discretion to reconsider its decisions, and…”
Philomath Forest Prods. Co. v. Emp. Div., 741 P.2d 912 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
“Smith, 64 Or App 33 , 666 P2d 1369 (1983), where we held that, under ORS 657.290(1) as it read at the time of our decision, the Employment Division had no authority to withdraw and amend an earlier decision to bring it into conformity with an agency policy.”
Mascorro v. Emp. Div., 689 P.2d 1326 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
“This argument ignores ORS 657.290(3), which allows EAB to reconsider a decision on application of a party and the fact that claimant’s first request for reconsideration was made within 30 days of the date of EAB’s decision.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.290(b) — 1 case
Johnson v. Emp. Div., 680 P.2d 386 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
“315(1)(b) read in conjunction with former ORS 657.290(1) [1] authorizes recoupment *388 in this case.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.290(l)(a) — 1 case
Trebesch v. Emp. Div., 710 P.2d 136 (Or. 1985).
“Depending upon how comprehensive the adjudicatory power is, the legislature may have envisioned that interpretations of law by orders in contested cases would provide an alternative to interpretations by rules.”
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.