2017 ORS 656.310¹
Presumption concerning notice of injury and self-inflicted injuries
  • reports as evidence

(1) In any proceeding for the enforcement of a claim for compensation under this chapter, there is a rebuttable presumption that:

(a) Sufficient notice of injury was given and timely filed; and

(b) The injury was not occasioned by the willful intention of the injured worker to commit self-injury or suicide.

(2) The contents of medical, surgical and hospital reports presented by claimants for compensation shall constitute prima facie evidence as to the matter contained therein; so, also, shall such reports presented by the insurer or self-insured employer, provided that the doctor rendering medical and surgical reports consents to submit to cross-examination. This subsection shall also apply to medical or surgical reports from any treating or examining doctor who is not a resident of Oregon, provided that the claimant, self-insured employer or the insurer shall have a reasonable time, but no less than 30 days after receipt of notice that the report will be offered in evidence at a hearing, to cross-examine such doctor by deposition or by written interrogatories to be settled by the Administrative Law Judge. [1965 c.285 §40; 1969 c.447 §1; 1981 c.854 §21]

Notes of Decisions

Report by out-of-state physician is not admissible unless physician is “treating or examining doctor.” Downey v. Halvorson-Mason, 20 Or App 593, 532 P2d 807 (1975), Sup Ct review denied

Where first insurer offered written medical reports and sec­ond insurer made arrange­ments for doctor to appear at hearing for cross-examina­tion, first insurer was responsible for paying fees and expenses incident to doctor’s appearance as witness. Hanna v. McGrew Bros. Sawmill, 44 Or App 189, 605 P2d 724 (1980), modified 45 Or App 757, 609 P2d 422 (1980)

Specific allowance of medical, surgical and hospital reports does not exclude introduc­tion of other types of reports. Stevens v. Champion Interna­tional, 44 Or App 587, 606 P2d 674 (1980)

State­ments in medical reports constitute prima facie evidence of medical matters only, not causa­tion issues. Zurita v. Canby Nursery, 115 Or App 330, 838 P2d 625 (1992), Sup Ct review denied

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.