657.683
Hearings on actions under ORS 657.480, 657.679, 657.681 and 657.682; decision
of administrative law judge; amendment of decision. (1) An application for hearing
under ORS 657.480, 657.679, 657.681 or 657.682 shall be in writing and shall
state that a determination or assessment of the Director of the Employment
Department or authorized representative is unjust or incorrect and that the
employing unit requests a hearing. The application shall set forth the
objections of the employing unit to the determination or assessment and the
amount of contributions, if any, that the applicant admits to be due to the
Employment Department. An application for a hearing to review an assessment
made under ORS 657.681 (4) that was accompanied by a demand for a bond or
deposit is not valid unless the bond or deposit is filed with the application
in a form acceptable to the director or authorized representative.
(2) If a valid
application for hearing is filed within the time provided by ORS 657.480,
657.679, 657.681 or 657.682, an administrative law judge shall review the
determination or assessment and if requested by the employing unit shall grant
a hearing unless a hearing has previously been afforded the employing unit on
the same grounds as set forth in the application. The administrative law judge
shall give notice of the time and place of the hearing to the director or
authorized representative and shall also give notice to the employing unit by
mail directed to the last-known address of the employing unit of record with
the director.
(3) Hearings
under ORS 657.480, 657.679, 657.681 or 657.682 shall be conducted in accordance
with this chapter. The filing of an application for hearing with respect to a
disputed assessment does not affect the right of the director or authorized
representative to perfect any liens provided by this chapter.
(4) All testimony
at any hearing held under ORS 657.480, 657.679, 657.681 or 657.682 shall be
recorded but need not be transcribed unless a petition for judicial review from
the decision of the administrative law judge is filed in the manner and within
the time prescribed. At any hearing held as provided in ORS 657.480, 657.679,
657.681 or 657.682, the determination or assessment of the director or
authorized representative shall be prima facie correct and the burden shall be
upon the protesting employing unit to prove that it is incorrect. Thereafter
the administrative law judge shall enter the findings of fact and decision,
either affirming, modifying, or setting aside the determination or assessment
of the director or authorized representative and in the case of an assessment,
the administrative law judge may increase or decrease the amount of the
assessment. The employing unit and the director shall be promptly notified of
the decision of the administrative law judge.
(5) A decision of
the administrative law judge becomes final on the date of notification or the
mailing of the decision to the director and to the employing unit at the
last-known address of record with the director unless, within the time
specified in ORS 183.480 (2), the administrative law judge on the
administrative law judge’s own motion reviews the decision and issues an
amended decision in which case the amended decision becomes the final decision.
[1963 c.354 §4 (657.552, 657.652, 657.679, 657.681 and 657.683 enacted in lieu
of 657.472, 657.512, 657.550 and 657.672); 1967 c.435 §9; 1971 c.734 §98; 1999
c.849 §§150,151; 2003 c.75 §55; 2005 c.214 §3; 2007 c.49 §1]
Notes of Decisions
Kaib's Roving R.Ph. Agency, Inc. v. Emp. Dep't, 77 P.3d 327 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 19× “"For the purposes of this case, thus, the essential distinctions between a contested case that is entirely governed by the [Administrative Procedures Act] and a proceeding under ORS 657.”
Kaib's Roving R.Ph. Agency, Inc. v. Emp. Dep't, 50 P.3d 1193 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 7× “For the purposes of this case, thus, the essential distinctions between a contested case that is entirely governed by the APA and a proceeding under ORS 657.683 are that ORS 657.683 establishes a one-step rather than two-step decision-making process and the Director is a party,…”
Avanti Press, Inc. v. Emp. Dep't Tax Section, 274 P.3d 190 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “684 (“Judicial review of decisions under ORS 657.683 shall be as provided for review of orders in contested cases in ORS chapter 183 * * *.”
Portland Columbia Symphony v. Emp. Dep't, 310 P.3d 1139 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 3× “We likewise devote our analysis to the ALJ’s application of those two criteria, reviewing the order for errors of law and substantial reason.”
Kaib's Roving R.Ph. Agency, Inc. v. Emp. Dep't, 111 P.3d 739 (Or. 2005).
· cites it 12× “The court observed that the chief of the department’s hearings section, in collaboration with other department employees, had prepared the final order for the director’s signature, which, as noted, the director then had signed.”
Gross v. Emp. Dep't, 240 P.3d 1130 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 3× “” On the above facts, the ALJ concluded that petitioner is an “employer,” as defined in ORS 657.025, and that the technicians were engaged in subject “employment,” as defined under ORS 657.”
Broadway Cab LLC v. Emp. Dep't, 364 P.3d 338 (Or. 2015).
“684 provides: “Judicial review of decisions under ORS 657.683 shall be as provided for review of orders in contested cases in ORS chapter 183 12 ORS 183.”
Travel Networkers, LLC v. Emp. Dep't, 30 P.3d 416 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 3× “ORS 657.683(1). The hearings officer may enter a decision affirming, modifying, or setting aside the Department’s assessment.”
Canvasser Servs., Inc. v. Emp. Dep't, 987 P.2d 562 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “Under ORS 657.683(4), the employer has the burden of proving that the Department’s assessment is incorrect.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.683(1) — 5 cases
Travel Networkers, LLC v. Emp. Dep't, 30 P.3d 416 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“ORS 657.683(1). The hearings officer may enter a decision affirming, modifying, or setting aside the Department’s assessment.”
Kaib's Roving R.Ph. Agency, Inc. v. Emp. Dep't, 111 P.3d 739 (Or. 2005).
“The court observed that the chief of the department’s hearings section, in collaboration with other department employees, had prepared the final order for the director’s signature, which, as noted, the director then had signed.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.683(10) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.683(2) — 6 cases
Kaib's Roving R.Ph. Agency, Inc. v. Emp. Dep't, 111 P.3d 739 (Or. 2005).
“The court observed that the chief of the department’s hearings section, in collaboration with other department employees, had prepared the final order for the director’s signature, which, as noted, the director then had signed.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.683(4) — 33 cases
Kaib's Roving R.Ph. Agency, Inc. v. Emp. Dep't, 50 P.3d 1193 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
“For the purposes of this case, thus, the essential distinctions between a contested case that is entirely governed by the APA and a proceeding under ORS 657.683 are that ORS 657.683 establishes a one-step rather than two-step decision-making process and the Director is a party,…”
Kaib's Roving R.Ph. Agency, Inc. v. Emp. Dep't, 77 P.3d 327 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“"For the purposes of this case, thus, the essential distinctions between a contested case that is entirely governed by the [Administrative Procedures Act] and a proceeding under ORS 657.”
Portland Columbia Symphony v. Emp. Dep't, 310 P.3d 1139 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
“We likewise devote our analysis to the ALJ’s application of those two criteria, reviewing the order for errors of law and substantial reason.”
Gross v. Emp. Dep't, 240 P.3d 1130 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
“” On the above facts, the ALJ concluded that petitioner is an “employer,” as defined in ORS 657.025, and that the technicians were engaged in subject “employment,” as defined under ORS 657.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.683(5) — 6 cases
Kaib's Roving R.Ph. Agency, Inc. v. Emp. Dep't, 50 P.3d 1193 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
“For the purposes of this case, thus, the essential distinctions between a contested case that is entirely governed by the APA and a proceeding under ORS 657.683 are that ORS 657.683 establishes a one-step rather than two-step decision-making process and the Director is a party,…”
Kaib's Roving R.Ph. Agency, Inc. v. Emp. Dep't, 77 P.3d 327 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“"For the purposes of this case, thus, the essential distinctions between a contested case that is entirely governed by the [Administrative Procedures Act] and a proceeding under ORS 657.”
Travel Networkers, LLC v. Emp. Dep't, 30 P.3d 416 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“ORS 657.683(1). The hearings officer may enter a decision affirming, modifying, or setting aside the Department’s assessment.”
Kaib's Roving R.Ph. Agency, Inc. v. Emp. Dep't, 111 P.3d 739 (Or. 2005).
“The court observed that the chief of the department’s hearings section, in collaboration with other department employees, had prepared the final order for the director’s signature, which, as noted, the director then had signed.”
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.