2017 ORS 656.298¹
Judicial review of board orders
  • settlement during pendency of petition for review

(1) Within the time limit specified in ORS 656.295 (Board review of Administrative Law Judge orders), any party affected by an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board, including orders issued pursuant to ORS 656.278 (Board has continuing authority to alter earlier action on claim), may request judicial review of the order by the Court of Appeals.

(2) The name and style of the proceedings shall be “In the Matter of the Compensation of (name of the worker).”

(3) The judicial review shall be commenced by serving a copy of a petition for judicial review on the board and on the parties who appeared in the review proceedings, and by filing with the clerk of the Court of Appeals the original petition for judicial review with proof of service indorsed thereon. The petition for judicial review shall state:

(a) The name of the person requesting judicial review and of all other parties.

(b) The date of the filing of the order for which judicial review is requested.

(c) A statement that the person is requesting judicial review by the Court of Appeals.

(d) A brief statement of the relief requested and the reasons the relief should be granted.

(4) Within 10 days after service of a petition for judicial review on a party under subsection (3) of this section, such party may also request judicial review in the same manner.

(5) The following requirements of subsection (3) of this section are jurisdictional and may not be waived or extended:

(a) Service of the petition for judicial review on all parties identified in the petition for judicial review as adverse parties or, if the petition for judicial review does not identify adverse parties, on all parties who have appeared in the proceeding before the board, within the time limits imposed by ORS 656.295 (Board review of Administrative Law Judge orders) (8) and by subsection (4) of this section.

(b) Filing of the original petition for judicial review with the Court of Appeals within the time limits imposed by ORS 656.295 (Board review of Administrative Law Judge orders) (8) and by subsection (4) of this section.

(6) Within 30 days after service of a petition for judicial review on the board, the board shall forward to the clerk of the Court of Appeals:

(a) The original copy of the transcribed record prepared under ORS 656.295 (Board review of Administrative Law Judge orders).

(b) All exhibits.

(c) Copies of all decisions and orders entered during the hearing and review proceedings.

(7) The review by the Court of Appeals shall be on the entire record forwarded by the board. Review shall be as provided in ORS 183.482 (Jurisdiction for review of contested cases) (7) and (8).

(8) Review under this section shall be given precedence on the docket over all other cases, except those given equal status by statute.

(9)(a) If the parties to a petition for judicial review of an order of the board settle all or part of the matter during the pendency of the petition for judicial review, the board has jurisdiction to enter any orders that may be necessary to implement the settlement.

(b) If the settlement disposes of all issues during the pendency of the petition for judicial review, the appellate court may dismiss the petition for judicial review.

(c) If the settlement disposes of part of the issues during the pendency of the petition for judicial review, the appellate court may limit judicial review to the issues not disposed of by the settlement. [1965 c.285 §36; 1977 c.804 §11; 1987 c.884 §12a; 1997 c.389 §1; 2005 c.188 §3; 2007 c.17 §1]

Note: See notes under 656.202 (Compensation payable to subject worker in accordance with law in effect at time of injury).

Notes of Decisions

Circuit court acquires jurisdic­tion if notifica­tion is actually received notwithstanding that notice was not dispatched by registered or certified mail. Stroh v. SAIF, 261 Or 117, 492 P2d 472 (1972)

Order is not ap­pealable final order unless resolving rights of parties and all ques­tions re­gard­ing claim without further pro­ceed­ings. Hammond v. Albina Engine & Machine Works, Inc., 13 Or App 156, 509 P2d 56 (1973); Mendenhall v. SAIF, 16 Or App 136, 517 P2d 706 (1974), Sup Ct review denied

Where claimant does not deny receipt of first mailing of board’s order, sec­ond and later mailing of an­oth­er copy of the same order does not extend time for ap­peal. Wise v. SAIF, 14 Or App 463, 513 P2d 1212 (1973)

Defect in ap­peal notice content does not deprive court of jurisdic­tion. Stevens v. SAIF, 20 Or App 412, 531 P2d 921 (1975)

Time limit for serving notice of ap­peal is jurisdic­tional matter. Zandbergen v. Johnson, 24 Or App 151, 544 P2d 587 (1976)

Sending of notice by means other than registered or certified mail is ineffective to es­tab­lish jurisdic­tion unless actually received. Stevens v. SAIF, 27 Or App 87, 555 P2d 480 (1976)

Order continuing temporary disability pay­ments was not final and ap­pealable order. Beck v. Oregon Steel Mills, 36 Or App 581, 585 P2d 37 (1978); Jones v. SAIF, 49 or App 543, 619 P2d 1342 (1980)

Award of attorney fees by board may be contested on ap­peal without prior objec­tion to board. Bentley v. SAIF, 38 Or App 473, 590 P2d 746 (1979)

Service on director of Workers’ Compensa­tion Depart­ment in manner specified by this sec­tion is adequate service on the Workers’ Compensa­tion Board. Boyce v. Sambo’s Restaurants, 39 Or App 615, 593 P2d 1178 (1979)

Authority under ORS 656.593 (Procedure when worker or beneficiary elects to bring action) to resolve conflicts concerning balance of third party recovery is reviewable as matter concerning claim. Schlecht v. SAIF, 60 Or App 449, 653 P2d 1284 (1982)

Court of Appeals lacks jurisdic­tion to hear ap­peal if peti­tioner fails to give notice to all parties that appeared in review pro­ceed­ings. Zurich Ins. Co. v. Diversified Risk Manage­ment, 300 Or 47, 706 P2d 178 (1985)

Reference to con­ducting of review as provided in specific subsec­tions of ORS 183.482 (Jurisdiction for review of contested cases) does not authorize remand for further evidence taking as provided under related subsec­tion of ORS 183.482 (Jurisdiction for review of contested cases). United Foam Corp. v. Whiddon, 92 Or App 492, 758 P2d 435 (1988)

Board is not re­quired to explain its rejec­tion of referee’s express credibility findings. Erck v. Brown Oldsmobile, 311 Or 519, 815 P2d 1251 (1991)

Board is not re­quired to defer to medical opinion of treating physician. Dillon v. Whirlpool Corp., 172 Or App 484, 19 P3d 951 (2001)

Failure to serve copy of peti­tion for judicial review on party within time allowed for commencing review is not jurisdic­tional defect. Liberty Northwest Insurance Corp. v. Spivey, 197 Or App 67, 104 P3d 640 (2005)

Completed Cita­tions

Sahnow v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 3 Or App 164, 470 P2d 378 (1970), aff’d 260 Or 564, 491 P2d 997 (1971); Blisserd v. SAIF, 6 Or App 111, 486 P2d 1312 (1971)

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.