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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 677.320 (2026)

Investigation of complaints and suspected violations

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

      677.320 Investigation of complaints and suspected violations. (1) Upon the complaint of any resident of this state, or upon its own initiative, the Oregon Medical Board may investigate any alleged violation of this chapter. If, after the investigation, the board has reason to believe that any person is subject to criminal prosecution in this state for the violation of this chapter, the board shall lay the facts before the proper district attorney.

      (2) In the conduct of investigations, the board or its designated representative may:

      (a) Take evidence;

      (b) Take the depositions of witnesses, including the person charged;

      (c) Compel the appearance of witnesses, including the person charged;

      (d) Require answers to interrogatories; and

      (e) Compel the production of books, papers, accounts, documents and testimony pertaining to the matter under investigation.

      (3) In exercising its authority under subsection (2) of this section, the board may issue subpoenas over the signature of the executive director and the seal of the board in the name of the State of Oregon.

      (4) In any proceeding under this section where the subpoena is addressed to a licensee of this board, it shall not be a defense that the material that is subject to the subpoena is protected under a patient and physician privilege.

      (5) If a licensee who is the subject of an investigation or complaint is to appear before members of the board investigating the complaint, the board shall provide the licensee with a current summary of the complaint or the matter being investigated not less than five days prior to the date that the licensee is to appear. At the time the summary of the complaint or the matter being investigated is provided, the board shall provide to the licensee a current summary of documents or alleged facts that the board has acquired as a result of the investigation. The name of the complainant or other information that reasonably may be used to identify the complainant may be withheld from the licensee.

      (6) A licensee who is the subject of an investigation and any person authorized to act on behalf of the licensee shall not knowingly contact the complainant until the licensee has requested a contested case hearing and the board has authorized the taking of the complainant’s deposition pursuant to ORS 183.425.

      (7) Except in an investigation or proceeding conducted by the board or another public entity, or in an action, suit or proceeding where a public entity is a party, a licensee shall not be questioned or examined regarding any communication with the board made in an appearance before the board as part of an investigation. This section shall not prohibit examination or questioning of a licensee regarding records dealing with a patient’s care and treatment or affect the admissibility of those records. As used in this section, “public entity” has the meaning given that term in ORS 676.177. [Amended by 1983 c.486 §40; 1989 c.830 §25; 1997 c.792 §26; 1999 c.751 §5; 2023 c.228 §51]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case: Grobovsky v. Bd. of Med. Examiners, 159 P.3d 1245 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Grobovsky v. Bd. of Med. Examiners, 159 P.3d 1245 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 5× “According to the board’s own analysis, the evaluation order did not preclude the board from further consideration of the subject matter of the evaluation; indeed, further board consideration was a certainty. An order for an evaluation is only one of a number of investigatory…”
Read v. Oregon Med. Bd., 260 P.3d 771 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 3× “190(18) (2008) (“failing to comply with a board request pursuant to ORS 677.320”). The board ordered petitioner’s license revoked, imposed a penalty of $10,000, and assessed the costs of the disciplinary proceeding.”
Sachdev v. Or. Med. Bd., 426 P.3d 118 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “" * * * * * "(17) Willfully violating any provision of this chapter or any rule adopted by the board, board order, or failing to comply *123 with a board request pursuant to ORS 677.320. " * * * * * "(23) Violation of the federal Controlled Substances Act.”
Anderson v. Bd. of Med. Examiners, 770 P.2d 947 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). “190(18) was that she had failed to comply with a subpena duces tecum issued pursuant to ORS 677.320. The Board based its finding of a violation of ORS 677.”
Hawkins v. Bd. of Med. Examiners, 542 P.2d 152 (Or. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 3× “ORS 677.320. ① As part of that investigation the Board, in January 1973, ordered petitioner to take a competency examination.”
Jeremy Conklin v. Oregon Med. Bd., an Oregon State Agency; Nicole Krishnaswami, an individual; Michael Seidel, an i (D. Or. 2026). · cites it 2× “Conklin (believing that ORS § 677.320—OMB’s basis for the interview request—does not require an in-person interview) did not appear for the requested interview.”
Gambee v. Oregon Med. Bd., 322 P.3d 1107 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). “«* * * * if: “(17) Willfully violating any provision of this chapter or any rule adopted by the board, board order, or failing to comply with a board request pursuant to ORS 677.320.” Under ORS 677.265(l)(e), the board is charged with determining “whether the licensee used that…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 677.320(1) — 1 case
Grobovsky v. Bd. of Med. Examiners, 159 P.3d 1245 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). “According to the board’s own analysis, the evaluation order did not preclude the board from further consideration of the subject matter of the evaluation; indeed, further board consideration was a certainty. An order for an evaluation is only one of a number of investigatory…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 677.320(2)(b) — 1 case
Grobovsky v. Bd. of Med. Examiners, 159 P.3d 1245 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). “According to the board’s own analysis, the evaluation order did not preclude the board from further consideration of the subject matter of the evaluation; indeed, further board consideration was a certainty. An order for an evaluation is only one of a number of investigatory…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 677.320(2)(c) — 1 case
Grobovsky v. Bd. of Med. Examiners, 159 P.3d 1245 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). “According to the board’s own analysis, the evaluation order did not preclude the board from further consideration of the subject matter of the evaluation; indeed, further board consideration was a certainty. An order for an evaluation is only one of a number of investigatory…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 677.320(2)(d) — 1 case
Grobovsky v. Bd. of Med. Examiners, 159 P.3d 1245 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). “According to the board’s own analysis, the evaluation order did not preclude the board from further consideration of the subject matter of the evaluation; indeed, further board consideration was a certainty. An order for an evaluation is only one of a number of investigatory…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 677.320(2)(e) — 1 case
Grobovsky v. Bd. of Med. Examiners, 159 P.3d 1245 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). “According to the board’s own analysis, the evaluation order did not preclude the board from further consideration of the subject matter of the evaluation; indeed, further board consideration was a certainty. An order for an evaluation is only one of a number of investigatory…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 677.320(5) — 1 case
Read v. Oregon Med. Bd., 260 P.3d 771 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “190(18) (2008) (“failing to comply with a board request pursuant to ORS 677.320”). The board ordered petitioner’s license revoked, imposed a penalty of $10,000, and assessed the costs of the disciplinary proceeding.”
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.