676.175
Complaints and investigations confidential; exceptions; fees. (1) A health professional
regulatory board shall keep confidential and not disclose to the public any
information obtained by the board as part of an investigation of a licensee or
applicant, including complaints concerning licensee or applicant conduct and
information permitting the identification of complainants, licensees or
applicants. However, the board may disclose information obtained in the course
of an investigation of a licensee or applicant to the extent necessary to
conduct a full and proper investigation.
(2)
Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, if a health professional
regulatory board votes not to issue a notice of intent to impose a disciplinary
sanction:
(a) The board
shall disclose information obtained as part of an investigation of an applicant
or licensee if the person requesting the information demonstrates by clear and
convincing evidence that the public interest in disclosure outweighs other
interests in nondisclosure, including but not limited to the public interest in
nondisclosure.
(b) The board may
disclose to a complainant a written summary of information obtained as part of
an investigation of an applicant or licensee resulting from the complaint to
the extent the board determines necessary to explain the reasons for the board’s
decision. An applicant or licensee may review and obtain a copy of any written
summary of information disclosed to a complainant by the board after the board
has deleted any information that could reasonably be used to identify the
complainant.
(3) If a health
professional regulatory board votes to issue a notice of intent to impose a
disciplinary sanction, upon written request by the licensee or applicant, the
board shall disclose to the licensee or applicant all information obtained by
the board in the investigation of the allegations in the notice except:
(a) Information
that is privileged or confidential under a law other than this section.
(b) Information
that would permit the identification of any person who provided information
that led to the filing of the notice and who will not provide testimony at a
hearing arising out of the investigation.
(c) Information
that would permit the identification of any person as a person who made a
complaint to the board about a licensee or applicant.
(d) Reports of
expert witnesses.
(4) Information
disclosed to a licensee or applicant under subsection (3) of this section may
be further disclosed by the licensee or applicant only to the extent necessary
to prepare for a hearing on the notice of intent to impose a disciplinary
sanction.
(5)(a) A health
professional regulatory board shall disclose:
(A) A notice of
intent to impose a disciplinary sanction against a licensee or applicant that
has been issued by vote of the board;
(B) A final order
that results from the board’s notice of intent to impose a disciplinary
sanction;
(C) An emergency
suspension order;
(D) A consent
order or stipulated agreement that involves licensee or applicant conduct; and
(E) Information
to further an investigation into board conduct under ORS 192.685.
(b) A health
professional regulatory board may make the information required to be disclosed
under paragraph (a)(A) to (D) of this subsection available in electronic form,
accessible by use of a personal computer or similar technology that provides
direct electronic access to the information.
(6) If a notice
of intent to impose a disciplinary sanction has been issued by vote of a health
professional regulatory board, a final order that results from the board’s
notice of intent to impose a disciplinary sanction, an emergency suspension
order or a consent order or stipulated agreement that involves licensee or
applicant conduct shall summarize the factual basis for the board’s disposition
of the matter.
(7) A health
professional regulatory board record or order, or any part thereof, obtained as
part of or resulting from an investigation, contested case proceeding, consent
order or stipulated agreement, is not admissible as evidence and may not
preclude an issue or claim in any civil proceeding except in a proceeding
between the board and the licensee or applicant as otherwise allowed by law.
(8)(a)
Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, it is not disclosure to the
public for a board to permit other public officials and members of the press to
attend executive sessions where information obtained as part of an
investigation is discussed. Public officials and members of the press attending
such executive sessions shall not disclose information obtained as part of an
investigation to any other member of the public.
(b) For purposes
of this subsection, “public official” means a member or member-elect, or any
member of the staff or an employee, of a public entity as defined by ORS
676.177.
(9) A health
professional regulatory board may establish fees reasonably calculated to
reimburse the actual cost of disclosing information to licensees or applicants
as required by subsection (3) of this section. [1997 c.791 §2; 1999 c.751 §3;
2005 c.801 §1]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 2008–2025 · leading case:
Shank v. Bd. of Nursing, 185 P.3d 532 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
Shank v. Bd. of Nursing, 185 P.3d 532 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 25× “We agree that the board erred as a result of its incorrect construction of ORS 676.175, and we therefore remand for reconsideration.”
Salibello v. Oregon Bd. of Optometry, 367 P.3d 932 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 6× “He sought a declaration that he is a “licensee” for purposes of the disclosure requirements of ORS 676.175. He also sought an order requiring the board to “fully disclose the correspondence sent to the complainant *367 with complainant’s name redacted” and an order requiring the…”
Rushton v. Oregon Med. Bd., 497 P.3d 814 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 8× “175(3) provides, in part: “If a health professional regulatory board votes to issue a notice of intent to impose a disciplinary sanction, upon written request by the licensee or applicant, the board shall disclose to the licensee or applicant all information obtained by the…”
Harmon v. Oregon Med. Bd., 510 P.3d 949 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 25× “Oregon Medical Board In her second assignment of error on cross-appeal, plaintiff contends that the trial court abused its discretion in closing the two hearings to the public and in sealing the hearing records, beyond the scope of protecting confi- dentiality set forth in ORS…”
Kerr v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 467 P.3d 754 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 3× “Petitioner’s Procedural Objection As her fifth assignment, petitioner contends that the board erred in rejecting her “affirmative defense” that Berry, a board investigator, breached the confidentiality of the investigation contrary to ORS 676.175. Petitioner com- plains that, on…”
Wang v. Bd. of Massage Therapists, 519 P.3d 1281 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 9× “Plaintiff contends that she had applied for a license and therefore was an “applicant” entitled to the investigation report about her.”
Conklin v. Oregon Med. Bd. (D. Or. 2025).
“” ORS 676.175. Any erroneous deprivation to Plaintiff can likely be corrected through the state’s administrative and appellate process.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 676.175(1) — 4 cases
Shank v. Bd. of Nursing, 185 P.3d 532 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
“We agree that the board erred as a result of its incorrect construction of ORS 676.175, and we therefore remand for reconsideration.”
Harmon v. Oregon Med. Bd., 510 P.3d 949 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“Oregon Medical Board In her second assignment of error on cross-appeal, plaintiff contends that the trial court abused its discretion in closing the two hearings to the public and in sealing the hearing records, beyond the scope of protecting confi- dentiality set forth in ORS…”
Salibello v. Oregon Bd. of Optometry, 367 P.3d 932 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“He sought a declaration that he is a “licensee” for purposes of the disclosure requirements of ORS 676.175. He also sought an order requiring the board to “fully disclose the correspondence sent to the complainant *367 with complainant’s name redacted” and an order requiring the…”
Wang v. Bd. of Massage Therapists, 519 P.3d 1281 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“Plaintiff contends that she had applied for a license and therefore was an “applicant” entitled to the investigation report about her.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 676.175(2) — 1 case
Shank v. Bd. of Nursing, 185 P.3d 532 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
“We agree that the board erred as a result of its incorrect construction of ORS 676.175, and we therefore remand for reconsideration.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 676.175(3) — 3 cases
Salibello v. Oregon Bd. of Optometry, 367 P.3d 932 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“He sought a declaration that he is a “licensee” for purposes of the disclosure requirements of ORS 676.175. He also sought an order requiring the board to “fully disclose the correspondence sent to the complainant *367 with complainant’s name redacted” and an order requiring the…”
Rushton v. Oregon Med. Bd., 497 P.3d 814 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“175(3) provides, in part: “If a health professional regulatory board votes to issue a notice of intent to impose a disciplinary sanction, upon written request by the licensee or applicant, the board shall disclose to the licensee or applicant all information obtained by the…”
Wang v. Bd. of Massage Therapists, 519 P.3d 1281 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“Plaintiff contends that she had applied for a license and therefore was an “applicant” entitled to the investigation report about her.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 676.175(3)(d) — 1 case
Rushton v. Oregon Med. Bd., 497 P.3d 814 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“175(3) provides, in part: “If a health professional regulatory board votes to issue a notice of intent to impose a disciplinary sanction, upon written request by the licensee or applicant, the board shall disclose to the licensee or applicant all information obtained by the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 676.175(5)(a)(A) — 1 case
Kerr v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 467 P.3d 754 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“Petitioner’s Procedural Objection As her fifth assignment, petitioner contends that the board erred in rejecting her “affirmative defense” that Berry, a board investigator, breached the confidentiality of the investigation contrary to ORS 676.175. Petitioner com- plains that, on…”
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.