ORS 654.290¹
Applicability of Administrative Procedures Act
  • Administrative Law Judge qualifications

(1) Promulgation by the Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services or by the Workers’ Compensation Board of regulations, rules and standards authorized by ORS 654.001 (Short title) to 654.295 (Application of Oregon Safe Employment Act), 654.412 (Definitions for ORS 654.412 to 654.423) to 654.423 (Use of physical force by home health care employee in self-defense against assault) and 654.750 (Definitions for ORS 654.750 to 654.780) to 654.780 (Providing basic information to employees), and any judicial review thereof, shall be as provided in ORS chapter 183.

(2) Notwithstanding ORS 183.315 (Application of provisions of chapter to certain agencies) (1), the issuance of orders pursuant to ORS 654.001 (Short title) to 654.295 (Application of Oregon Safe Employment Act), 654.412 (Definitions for ORS 654.412 to 654.423) to 654.423 (Use of physical force by home health care employee in self-defense against assault) and 654.750 (Definitions for ORS 654.750 to 654.780) to 654.780 (Providing basic information to employees), the conduct of hearings in contested cases and the judicial review thereof shall be as provided in ORS chapter 183, except that:

(a) The chairperson of the Workers’ Compensation Board or the designee of the chairperson shall employ Administrative Law Judges to hold hearings in contested cases.

(b) The order of an Administrative Law Judge in a contested case shall be deemed to be a final order of the board.

(c) The director shall have the same right to judicial review of the order of an Administrative Law Judge as any person who is adversely affected or aggrieved by such final order.

(d) Affected employees or their authorized representative shall be accorded an opportunity to participate as parties in hearings.

(3) Administrative Law Judges shall be members in good standing of the Oregon State Bar and possess such other qualifications as the board may prescribe, and shall be employed in accordance with ORS 656.724 (Administrative Law Judges). [1973 c.833 §35 (enacted in lieu of 654.040, 654.065, 654.070, 654.075 and 654.080); 1975 c.759 §18; 1977 c.804 §43; 1999 c.876 §1]

See also annota­tions under ORS 654.040 and 654.065 in permanent edi­tion.

Notes of Decisions

A jury trial is not re­quired by Art. I, §17 of the Oregon Constitu­tion for the imposi­tion of a penalty imposed under this sec­tion. Accident Preven­tion Div. v. No. Am. Contractors, Inc., 22 Or App 614, 540 P2d 391 (1975)

Notes of Decisions

Safety codes under Oregon Safe Employ­ment Act apply to all work places and not only to work places covered by Employer Liability Law. Miller v. Ga.-Pacific, 294 Or 750, 662 P2d 718 (1983)

Viola­tion of Workers' Compensa­tion Depart­ment rule resulting in injury to nonemploye is not negligence per se, but it does not follow that rule is irrelevant to determina­tion of due care in case grounded in common law negligence. Shahtout v. Emco Garbage Co., 298 Or 598, 695 P2d 897 (1985)

Where right of ac­tion for injuries exists resulting from viola­tion of Oregon Safe Employ­ment Act, right belongs only to employee whom Act directly protects not "indirect" employee. Flores v. Metro Machinery Rigging, Inc., 99 Or App 636, 783 P2d 1024 (1989), Sup Ct review denied

Referee did not err in finding employer in viola­tion of rule requiring workers to be "properly...supervised" where employee killed in accident was skilled and experienced supervisor working with two other supervisors during strike, but none of the three was in charge. Accident Preven­tion Div. v. Roseburg Forest Prod., 106 Or App 69, 806 P2d 172 (1991)

Whether identity of complainant falsely reporting viola­tion is subject to disclosure under Oregon public records law (ORS 192.410 (Definitions for ORS 192.410 to 192.505) et seq.) depends on complainant's good or bad faith in making complaint. Hood Technology Corp. v. Oregon Occupa­tional Safety and Health Division, 168 Or App 293, 7 P3d 564 (2000)

Chapter 654

Notes of Decisions

An administrative regula­tion requires Accident Preven­tion Division to prove reasonableness of civil penalty imposed for viola­tion of Oregon State Employ­ment Act. Accident Preven­tion Div. v. Sunrise Seed, 26 Or App 879, 554 P2d 550 (1976)

Accident Preven­tion Division rule allowing cita­tion for "repeat viola­tion" of division's safety standards while prior cita­tion is contested and not yet upheld by final order is within agency's authority to promulgate rules consistent with purpose of Act to assure as far as possible safe and healthful working condi­tions. Accident Preven­tion Div. v. Hoffman Construc­tion, 64 Or App 73, 667 P2d 543 (1983)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Inap­pli­ca­bil­i­ty of occupa­tional safety and health laws to inmates in prison work programs, (1996) Vol 48, p 134

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 654—Occupational Safety and Health, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­Archive/­2007ors654.­pdf (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2007, Chapter 654, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­654ano.­htm (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
 
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. Currency Information