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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 807.090 (2026)

Establishing eligibility notwithstanding mental or physical condition or impairment

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

      807.090 Establishing eligibility notwithstanding mental or physical condition or impairment. (1) If the Department of Transportation determines that a person may be ineligible for a license because the person has a mental or physical condition or impairment that affects the person’s ability to safely operate a motor vehicle, the person may establish eligibility for a license:

      (a) By personally demonstrating to the satisfaction of the department that, notwithstanding the mental or physical condition or impairment, the person is qualified to safely operate a motor vehicle; or

      (b) If the department reasonably believes that, notwithstanding the demonstration under paragraph (a) of this subsection, the person’s mental or physical condition or impairment affects the person’s ability to safely operate a motor vehicle, by receiving a determination of eligibility from the medical determination officer of the department under this section.

      (2) The medical determination officer shall determine that a person is eligible for a license under this section if an applicant establishes to the satisfaction of the officer that the person’s mental or physical condition or impairment does not affect the person’s ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. The medical determination officer shall use the following to determine the person’s eligibility under this subsection:

      (a) A report from the person’s physician, nurse practitioner or physician associate of the person’s condition or impairment.

      (b) If the person’s condition or impairment apparently involves only visual deficiencies, the department may require a person to submit a report from a licensed optometrist or a licensed physician who specializes in diagnosis and treatment of diseases of the eye.

      (c) The medical determination officer may require an examination and a written report of findings and recommendations from a qualified physician, nurse practitioner or physician associate identified by the officer in addition to other reports submitted.

      (3) If a person establishes eligibility for a license under this section by receiving a determination of eligibility, the department may require the person to reestablish eligibility at reasonable intervals. The frequency of reestablishing eligibility under this subsection shall be established by the medical determination officer after reviewing any recommendations from the physician, nurse practitioner or physician associate of the person required to reestablish eligibility.

      (4) The department may employ any qualified physician, nurse practitioner or physician associate who holds an unrestricted license in the State of Oregon to perform the duties assigned to the medical determination officer by this section.

      (5) As used in this section, “physician” means a person who holds a degree of Doctor of Medicine or Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine and is licensed under ORS 677.100 to 677.228 and a person who holds a degree of Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine and is licensed under ORS chapter 685. [1983 c.338 §305; 1989 c.224 §138; 1993 c.309 §2; 1999 c.770 §1; 2005 c.140 §2; 2007 c.195 §1; 2007 c.434 §2; 2017 c.409 §40; 2024 c.73 §166]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1990–2007 · leading case: State v. Olmstead, 800 P.2d 277 (Or. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Olmstead, 800 P.2d 277 (Or. 1990). · cites it 4× “440 and shall continue until such time as the person establishes eligibility under ORS 807.090." ORS 153.625 provides in part: "(1) The judge or clerk of every court of this state having jurisdiction of any traffic offense, as defined for the Oregon Vehicle Code, including all…”
Richardson v. Driver & Motor Veh. Servs. Div., 159 P.3d 1227 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). “See ORS 807.090 (providing for State Health Officer certification of eligibility for driving privileges of persons having mental or physical impairment or condition); OAR 735-074-0170 (same).”
Cook v. State, 104 P.3d 1153 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 6× “Although plaintiff apparently concedes that he would not be able to get an SPE certificate under the federal rules without wearing a prosthetic device, he nevertheless contends that the waiver process contained in ORS 807.090, OAR 735-060-0140, and OAR 740-100-0140 must be…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 807.090(1) — 1 case
Cook v. State, 104 P.3d 1153 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “Although plaintiff apparently concedes that he would not be able to get an SPE certificate under the federal rules without wearing a prosthetic device, he nevertheless contends that the waiver process contained in ORS 807.090, OAR 735-060-0140, and OAR 740-100-0140 must be…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 807.090(3) — 1 case
Cook v. State, 104 P.3d 1153 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “Although plaintiff apparently concedes that he would not be able to get an SPE certificate under the federal rules without wearing a prosthetic device, he nevertheless contends that the waiver process contained in ORS 807.090, OAR 735-060-0140, and OAR 740-100-0140 must be…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 807.090(l)(a) — 1 case
Cook v. State, 104 P.3d 1153 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “Although plaintiff apparently concedes that he would not be able to get an SPE certificate under the federal rules without wearing a prosthetic device, he nevertheless contends that the waiver process contained in ORS 807.090, OAR 735-060-0140, and OAR 740-100-0140 must be…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 807.090(l)(b) — 1 case
Cook v. State, 104 P.3d 1153 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “Although plaintiff apparently concedes that he would not be able to get an SPE certificate under the federal rules without wearing a prosthetic device, he nevertheless contends that the waiver process contained in ORS 807.090, OAR 735-060-0140, and OAR 740-100-0140 must be…”
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.