2017 ORS 656.054¹
Claim of injured worker of noncomplying employer
  • procedure for disputing acceptance of claim
  • recovery of costs from noncomplying employer
  • restrictions

(1) A compensable injury to a subject worker while in the employ of a noncomplying employer is compensable to the same extent as if the employer had complied with this chapter. The Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services shall refer the claim for such an injury to an assigned claims agent within 60 days of the date the director has notice of the claim. At the time of referral of the claim, the director shall notify the employer in writing regarding the referral of the claim and the employer’s right to object to the claim. A claim for compensation made by such a worker shall be processed by the assigned claims agent in the same manner as a claim made by a worker employed by a carrier-insured employer, except that the time within which the first installment of compensation is to be paid, pursuant to ORS

Notes of Decisions

Liability as insurer for noncomplying employer confers standing to seek review of disputed claim settle­ment between employer and worker. Trojan Concrete v. Tallant, 107 Or App 429, 812 P2d 433 (1991), Sup Ct review denied

Where wrong party is identified as noncomplying employer due to insurer error, backup denial cannot be issued if denial would result in lack of coverage. Garcia v. SAIF, 108 Or App 653, 816 P2d 1188 (1991)

Claim need not be compensable for depart­ment to recover cost of claim processing from noncomplying employer. Director of Dept. of Ins. and Finance v. Brimhall, 123 Or App 590, 860 P2d 884 (1993)

Noncomplying employer may not challenge validity of employee claim in de­fense of recovery ac­tion by Depart­ment of Consumer and Business Services. Director of DCBS v. J. M. Marson Co., Inc., 151 Or App 355, 949 P2d 318 (1997)

Law Review Cita­tions

55 OLR 432-445 (1976); 16 WLR 519 (1979); 22 WLR 559 (1986)

Chapter 656

Notes of Decisions

Party having af­firm­a­tive of any issue must prove it by preponderance of evidence unless legislature fixes some different quantum of proof. Hutcheson v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 288 Or 51, 602 P2d 268 (1979)

Amend­ments to existing statutes and enact­ment of addi­tional statutes by 1995 legisla­tion generally apply to pending cases and to orders still ap­pealable on June 7, 1995, effective date. Volk v. America West Air­lines, 135 Or App 565, 899 P2d 746 (1995), Sup Ct review denied

Amend­ments to existing statutes and enact­ment of addi­tional statutes by 1995 legisla­tion do not extend or shorten procedural time limita­tions with regard to ac­tions taken prior to June 7, 1995, effective date. Motel 6 v. McMasters, 135 Or App 583, 899 P2d 1212 (1995)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Benefit unavailability for inmates engaged in prison work programs, (1996) Vol 48, p 134

Law Review Cita­tions

24 WLR 321, 341 (1988); 32 WLR 217 (1996)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 656—Workers’ Compensation, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors656.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 656, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano656.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
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.