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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 659.875 (2026)

Discrimination in issuance of benefits or coverage or payment for certain medical services prohibited

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

      659.875 Discrimination in issuance of benefits or coverage or payment for certain medical services prohibited. (1) An individual may not, on the basis of actual or perceived race, color, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age or disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of or otherwise be subjected to discrimination by any health benefit plan issued or delivered in this state, in the receipt of medical assistance as defined in ORS 414.025 or in the coverage of or payment for the services, drugs, devices, products and procedures described in ORS 743A.067.

      (2) Violation of this section is an unlawful practice under ORS 659A.403.

      (3) Nothing in this section shall be construed to invalidate or limit the rights, remedies, procedures or legal standards available to individuals under ORS 659A.820 or 659A.885 or to supersede state or local laws that provide additional protections against discrimination on any basis described in subsection (1) of this section. [2017 c.721 §7]

 

      Note: 659.875 was enacted into law by the Legislative Assembly but was not added to or made a part of ORS chapter 659 or any series therein by legislative action. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation.

 

      659.880 [2017 c.721 §8; 2023 c.228 §5; renumbered 435.240 in 2023]

 

PENALTIES

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2022–2024 · leading case: Menchu v. Multnomah Cnty. Health Dep't (D. Or. 2024).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Menchu v. Multnomah Cnty. Health Dep't (D. Or. 2024). · cites it 2× “The Department’s argument, however, is based in the OTCA’s notice requirement, not its statute of limitations.”
Denton v. Shriners Hosp. for Child. (D. Or. 2024). · cites it 2× “820” do not appear in Or. Rev. Stat. § 659.875 (1)(b). However, the section applicable in this case does include the reference to the exception when a plaintiff pursues a BOLI action in subsection (2) as noted above.”
Brooks v. Clyne (D. Or. 2022). “”) § 659.875, which provides that a civil action under O.”
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.