2015 ORS 183.635¹
Agencies required to use administrative law judges from Office of Administrative Hearings
  • exceptions

(1) Except as provided in this section, all agencies must use administrative law judges assigned from the Office of Administrative Hearings established under ORS 183.605 (Office of Administrative Hearings) to conduct contested case hearings, without regard to whether those hearings are subject to the procedural requirements for contested case hearings.

(2) The following agencies need not use administrative law judges assigned from the office:

(a) Attorney General.

(b) Boards of stewards appointed by the Oregon Racing Commission.

(c) Bureau of Labor and Industries and the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries.

(d) Department of Corrections.

(e) Department of Education, State Board of Education and Superintendent of Public Instruction.

(f) Department of Human Services for vocational rehabilitation services cases under 29 U.S.C. 722(c) and disability determination cases under 42 U.S.C. 405.

(g) Department of Revenue.

(h) Department of State Police.

(i) Employment Appeals Board.

(j) Employment Relations Board.

(k) Energy Facility Siting Council.

(L) Fair Dismissal Appeals Board.

(m) Governor.

(n) Land Conservation and Development Commission.

(o) Land Use Board of Appeals.

(p) Local government boundary commissions created pursuant to ORS 199.430 (Procedure for creating commissions by local resolution or petition).

(q) Public universities listed in ORS 352.002 (Public universities).

(r) Oregon Youth Authority.

(s) Psychiatric Security Review Board.

(t) The Oregon Health Authority for hearings conducted under ORS 161.315 (Right of state to obtain mental examination of defendant) to 161.351 (Discharge by agency).

(u) Public Utility Commission.

(v) State Accident Insurance Fund Corporation.

(w) State Apprenticeship and Training Council.

(x) State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision.

(y) State Land Board.

(z) State Treasurer.

(3) The Workers’ Compensation Board is exempt from using administrative law judges assigned from the office for any hearing conducted by the board under ORS chapters 147, 654 and 656. Except as specifically provided in this subsection, the Department of Consumer and Business Services must use administrative law judges assigned from the office only for contested cases arising out of the department’s powers and duties under:

(a) ORS 86A.095 (Short title) to 86A.198 (Materials in languages other than English), 86A.990 (Criminal penalties for violations of ORS 86A.095 to 86A.198) and 86A.992 (Civil penalties for violations of ORS 86A.095 to 86A.198) and ORS chapter 59;

(b) ORS chapter 455;

(c) ORS chapter 674;

(d) ORS chapters 706 to 716;

(e) ORS chapter 717;

(f) ORS chapters 723, 725 and 726; and

(g) ORS chapters 731, 732, 733, 734, 735, 737, 742, 743, 743A, 743B, 744, 746, 748 and 750.

(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in any proceeding in which an agency is required to use an administrative law judge assigned from the office, an officer or employee of the agency may not conduct the hearing on behalf of the agency.

(5) Notwithstanding any other provision of ORS 183.605 (Office of Administrative Hearings) to 183.690 (Office of Administrative Hearings Oversight Committee), an agency is not required to use an administrative law judge assigned from the office if:

(a) Federal law requires that a different administrative law judge or hearing officer be used; or

(b) Use of an administrative law judge from the office could result in a loss of federal funds.

(6) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the Department of Environmental Quality must use administrative law judges assigned from the office only for contested case hearings conducted under the provisions of ORS 183.413 (Notice to parties before hearing of rights and procedure) to 183.470 (Orders in contested cases). [1999 c.849 §9; 2001 c.900 §46; 2003 c.75 §8; 2005 c.22 §131; 2005 c.26 §18; 2007 c.239 §9; 2009 c.541 §6; 2009 c.762 §46; 2009 c.830 §147; 2009 c.866 §10; 2011 c.637 §64; 2011 c.708 §25; 2013 c.296 §19; 2015 c.767 §53]

Chapter 183

Notes of Decisions

A legislative delega­tion of power in terms as broad as those used in [former] ORS 471.295 (1) places upon the administrative agency a responsibility to es­tab­lish standards by which the law is to be applied. Sun Ray Drive-in Dairy, Inc. v. Ore. Liquor Control Comm., 16 Or App 63, 517 P2d 289 (1973)

Administrative regula­tion providing that failure to perform responsibilities adequately was a ground for employee's dismissal. Palen v. State Bd. of Higher Educ., 18 Or App 442, 525 P2d 1047 (1974), Sup Ct review denied

Where it was determined that agency invalidly terminated substantive policy, trial court did not have authority to order agency to resume policy in absence of validly adopted agency rule. Burke v. Children's Services Division, 39 Or App 819, 593 P2d 1262 (1979), aff'd 288 Or 533, 607 P2d 141 (1980)

"Trending factors" published by the Depart­ment of Revenue and used to appraise prop­erty for purposes of prop­erty taxa­tion are not "rules" within the meaning of this chapter. Borden Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 286 Or 567, 595 P2d 1372 (1979)

Appellate court may review pro­ceed­ing meeting defini­tion of contested case whether or not pro­ceed­ing was formal administrative hearing. Patton v. State Bd. of Higher Ed., 293 Or 363, 647 P2d 931 (1982)

Circuit court could not entertain ac­tion for declaratory judg­ment di­rected at PERS, because PERS is subject to APA, which provides exclusive method for review of its ac­tions. FOPPO v. County of Marion, 93 Or App 93, 760 P2d 1353 (1988), Sup Ct review denied

Board of Educa­tion approval of textbook for use in state public schools was not "rule," but was "order in other than contested case," and jurisdic­tion for judicial review is in circuit court. Oregon Env. Council v. Oregon State Bd. of Ed., 307 Or 30, 761 P2d 1322 (1988)

Preponderance of evidence standard applies where initial license applica­tion is denied based on willful fraud. Sobel v. Board of Pharmacy, 130 Or App 374, 882 P2d 606 (1994), Sup Ct review denied

Completed Cita­tions

Wright v. Bateson, 5 Or App 628, 485 P2d 641 (1971), Sup Ct review denied, cert. denied, 405 US 930 (1972)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

State Speed Control Board subject to Administrative Procedures Act, (1974) Vol 36, p 1024; proxy voting at board meeting, (1974) Vol 36, p 1064; student con­duct pro­ceed­ings as "contested cases," (1976) Vol 37, p 1461; rulemaking authority of Statewide Health Coordinating Council and of Certificate of Need Appeals Board, (1977) Vol 38, p 1229; Oregon Medical Insurance Pool is funda­mentally private-sector body, under virtually total private control, created by state to fulfill public purpose and is not state agency or public body subject to Administrative Procedures Act (APA), (1989) Vol 46, p 155

Law Review Cita­tions

51 OLR 245 (1971); 53 OLR 364, 365 (1974); 10 WLJ 373, 420 (1974); 13 WLJ 499, 517, 525, 537 (1977); 57 OLR 334 (1978); 22 WLR 355 (1986); 36 WLR 219 (2000)


1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 183—Administrative Procedures Act; Legislative Review of Rules; Civil Penalties, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors183.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 183, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano183.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.