ORS 656.708¹
Hearings Division
  • duties

The Hearings Division is continued within the Workers’ Compensation Board. The division has the responsibility for providing an impartial forum for deciding all cases, disputes and controversies arising under 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 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), all cases, disputes and controversies regarding matters concerning a claim under this chapter, and for conducting such other hearings and proceedings as may be prescribed by law. [1977 c.804 §25; 1979 c.839 §17; 1987 c.373 §39]

Notes of Decisions

Where of­fi­cers of Accident Preven­tion Division are issued inspec­tion warrant by court to inspect work place for viola­tions of Oregon Safe Employ­ment Act, Workers’ Compensa­tion Depart­ment referee may rule on validity of warrant. Accident Preven­tion Division v. Hogan, 37 Or App 251, 586 P2d 1132 (1978)

Workers’ Compensa­tion Board had jurisdic­tion to supervise en­force­­ment of agree­ment settling disputed claim. Howard v. Liberty Northwest Ins., 94 Or App 283, 765 P2d 223 (1988)

Board had jurisdic­tion to consider carriers’ requests that board order repay­ment of or offset for monies erroneously sent to claimant. SAIF v. Zorich, 94 Or App 661, 766 P2d 1053 (1989)

Carrier’s delayed pay­ment to claimant’s insurance company for medical services did not involve pay­ments to subject worker and therefore was not within jurisdic­tion of board. Lloyd v. Employee Benefits Ins. Co., 96 Or App 591, 773 P2d 798 (1989)

Referee has subject matter jurisdic­tion over case even if request for hearing is subject to denial as untimely. SAIF v. Roles, 111 Or App 597, 826 P2d 1039 (1992), Sup Ct review denied

Ac­tion between insurers for unjust enrich­ment arising out of claim pay­ment is matter for resolu­tion by circuit court, not by hearings division. Specialty Risk Services v. Royal Indemnity Co., 213 Or App 620, 164 P3d 300 (2007)

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 (2019) (last ac­cessed May 16, 2020).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2019, Chapter 656, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano656.­html (2019) (last ac­cessed May 16, 2020).
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