659A.046
Reemployment of injured worker in other available and suitable work;
termination of right to reemployment; effect of collective bargaining
agreement. (1) A
worker who has sustained a compensable injury and is disabled from performing
the duties of the worker’s former regular employment shall, upon demand, be
reemployed by the worker’s employer at employment which is available and
suitable.
(2) A certificate
of the worker’s attending physician or a nurse practitioner authorized to
provide compensable medical services under ORS 656.245 that the worker is able
to perform described types of work shall be prima facie evidence of such
ability.
(3)
Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, the right to reemployment under
this section terminates when whichever of the following events first occurs:
(a) The worker
cannot return to reemployment at any position with the employer either by
determination of the attending physician or a nurse practitioner authorized to
provide compensable medical services under ORS 656.245 or upon appeal of that
determination, by determination of a medical arbiter or panel of medical
arbiters pursuant to ORS chapter 656.
(b) The worker is
eligible and participates in vocational assistance under ORS 656.340.
(c) The worker
accepts suitable employment with another employer after becoming medically
stationary.
(d) The worker
refuses a bona fide offer from the employer of light duty or modified
employment that is suitable prior to becoming medically stationary.
(e) Seven days
elapse from the date that the worker is notified by the insurer or self-insured
employer by certified mail that the worker’s attending physician or a nurse
practitioner authorized to provide compensable medical services under ORS
656.245 has released the worker for reemployment unless the worker requests
reemployment within that time period.
(f) Three years
elapse from the date of injury.
(4) Such right of
reemployment shall be subject to the provisions for seniority rights and other
employment restrictions contained in a valid collective bargaining agreement
between the employer and a representative of the employer’s employees.
(5)
Notwithstanding ORS 659A.165, a worker who refuses an offer of employment under
subsection (3)(d) of this section and who otherwise is entitled to family leave
under ORS 659A.150 to 659A.186:
(a) Automatically
commences a period of family leave under ORS 659A.150 to 659A.186 upon refusing
the offer of employment; and
(b) Need not give
additional written or oral notice to the employer that the employee is
commencing a period of family leave.
(6) Any violation
of this section is an unlawful employment practice.
(7) This section
applies only to employers who employ six or more persons. [Formerly 659.420;
2003 c.811 §§23,24; 2007 c.365 §12; 2007 c.633 §§6,7]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
14
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 2006–2026 · leading case:
Summerfield v. OLCC, 472 P.3d 231 (Or. 2020).
Summerfield v. OLCC, 472 P.3d 231 (Or. 2020).
· cites it 24× “(CC CV12100185) (CA A157108) (SC S066377) 472 P3d 231 Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging, among other things, that defendant, his former employer, violated statutes that (1) required defendant to reemploy him after a work injury, ORS 659A.046, (2) prohibited defendant from…”
Petock v. Asante, 268 P.3d 579 (Or. 2011).
· cites it 13× “043 or a right to reemployment under ORS 659A.046. Defendant, for its part, contends that the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the medical evidence adduced on summary judgment was sufficient to permit a reasonable trier of fact to find that the injury that plaintiff…”
Petock v. Asante, 240 P.3d 56 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 11× “) Plaintiffs second claim alleged that defendant “failed and refused to reemploy plaintiff into an available and suitable position in violation of ORS 659A.046 * * That statute, much like ORS 659A.”
Davis v. Tri-Cnty. Metro. Transp. Dist., 45 F. Supp. 3d 1222 (D. Or. 2014).
· cites it 11× “§ 659A.046; (4) discriminated against her because of her disability, in violation of Oregon’s Rehabilitation Act, O.”
Hernandez v. Catholic Health Initiatives, 490 P.3d 166 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“Plaintiff alleges (among other things) that Mercy Health committed unlawful employ- ment practices by (1) denying reemployment, in viola- tion of ORS 659A.046; (2) discriminating against plaintiff because of a disability, in violation of ORS 659A.”
Reddy v. Cascade Gen., Inc., 206 P.3d 1070 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “043 and ORS 659A.046, which pertain to reinstatement remedies for workers who have sustained compensable injuries.”
Schoen v. Freightliner LLC, 199 P.3d 332 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
“043 and ORS 659A.046 provide remedies for failure to reinstate or reemploy a worker who has sustained a compensable injury.”
Beaver v. NPC Int'l, Inc., 451 F. Supp. 2d 1196 (D. Or. 2006).
“043, which requires reinstatement of an injured worker, and ORS 659A.046, which requires the reemployment of an injured worker who is disabled from performing the duties of his former employment.”
Petock v. Asante, 243 P.3d 822 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
“043(3)(a)(F) (reinstatement) or ORS 659A.046(3)(f) (reemployment). We did not express any opinion as to whether plaintiffs evidence was sufficient to establish “medical causation” for purposes of compensability under the workers’ compensation statutes.”
Mejia v. Lamb Weston, Inc. (D. Or. 2020).
· cites it 7× “040; (2) failure to reemploy in violation of ORS 659A.046; (3) failure to reinstate in violation of ORS 659A.”
Hovhannisyan v. Winco Holdings, Inc. (D. Or. 2020).
· cites it 2× “043) and failure to reemploy (ORS 659A.046). Compl. [ECF 1] at 5-9. WinCo moves for summary judgment on all claims.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.046(1) — 4 cases
Summerfield v. OLCC, 472 P.3d 231 (Or. 2020).
“(CC CV12100185) (CA A157108) (SC S066377) 472 P3d 231 Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging, among other things, that defendant, his former employer, violated statutes that (1) required defendant to reemploy him after a work injury, ORS 659A.046, (2) prohibited defendant from…”
Petock v. Asante, 268 P.3d 579 (Or. 2011).
“043 or a right to reemployment under ORS 659A.046. Defendant, for its part, contends that the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the medical evidence adduced on summary judgment was sufficient to permit a reasonable trier of fact to find that the injury that plaintiff…”
Petock v. Asante, 240 P.3d 56 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
“) Plaintiffs second claim alleged that defendant “failed and refused to reemploy plaintiff into an available and suitable position in violation of ORS 659A.046 * * That statute, much like ORS 659A.”
Mejia v. Lamb Weston, Inc. (D. Or. 2020).
“040; (2) failure to reemploy in violation of ORS 659A.046; (3) failure to reinstate in violation of ORS 659A.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.046(3) — 2 cases
Summerfield v. OLCC, 472 P.3d 231 (Or. 2020).
“(CC CV12100185) (CA A157108) (SC S066377) 472 P3d 231 Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging, among other things, that defendant, his former employer, violated statutes that (1) required defendant to reemploy him after a work injury, ORS 659A.046, (2) prohibited defendant from…”
Mejia v. Lamb Weston, Inc. (D. Or. 2020).
“040; (2) failure to reemploy in violation of ORS 659A.046; (3) failure to reinstate in violation of ORS 659A.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.046(3)(a) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.046(3)(e) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.046(3)(f) — 4 cases
Petock v. Asante, 240 P.3d 56 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
“) Plaintiffs second claim alleged that defendant “failed and refused to reemploy plaintiff into an available and suitable position in violation of ORS 659A.046 * * That statute, much like ORS 659A.”
Petock v. Asante, 268 P.3d 579 (Or. 2011).
“043 or a right to reemployment under ORS 659A.046. Defendant, for its part, contends that the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the medical evidence adduced on summary judgment was sufficient to permit a reasonable trier of fact to find that the injury that plaintiff…”
Petock v. Asante, 243 P.3d 822 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
“043(3)(a)(F) (reinstatement) or ORS 659A.046(3)(f) (reemployment). We did not express any opinion as to whether plaintiffs evidence was sufficient to establish “medical causation” for purposes of compensability under the workers’ compensation statutes.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.046(4) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.046(6) — 1 case
Mejia v. Lamb Weston, Inc. (D. Or. 2020).
“040; (2) failure to reemploy in violation of ORS 659A.046; (3) failure to reinstate in violation of ORS 659A.”
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.