Black v. Department of Insurance & Finance

816 P.2d 652, 108 Or. App. 437, 1991 Ore. App. LEXIS 1238
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedAugust 21, 1991
DocketWCB 89-17333; CA A65274
StatusPublished

This text of 816 P.2d 652 (Black v. Department of Insurance & Finance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Black v. Department of Insurance & Finance, 816 P.2d 652, 108 Or. App. 437, 1991 Ore. App. LEXIS 1238 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).

Opinion

EDMONDS, J.

Petitioner, a physician, seeks review of an order of the Director of the Department of Insurance and Finance (director) that he be paid $700 as a fee for deposition testimony in a workers’ compensation proceeding.1 He challenges the validity of OAR 436-10-090(31),2 the rule under which the fee was calculated. We review the order under ORS 656.704(2) and ORS 183.482 and the challenge to the rule under ORS 183.400(2).3 We affirm.

Weyerhaeuser Co. deposed petitioner regarding a claim made by one of its employees. The deposition took approximately four hours. Petitioner billed Weyerhaeuser Co. $1,250 for his testimony but was paid only $700 in accordance with OAR 436-10-090(31). Petitioner appealed to the director for an additional payment of $550. The director concluded that the $700 payment was appropriate.

Petitioner asserts that the director is without statutory authority to regulate medical deposition fees and that OAR 436-10-090(31) is invalid. He argues that depositions [440]*440are not “medical services” within the meaning of ORS 656.245(1)4 and, therefore, that ORS 656.248(4)5 does not empower the director to promulgate rules for deposition testimony fees. The director argues, inter alia, that OAR 436-10-090.(31) is"authorized by ORS 656.726(3) and, therefore, is valid.

ORS 656.726(3) provides, in part:

“The director hereby is charged with duties of administration, regulation and enforcement of ORS 654.001 to 656.295,654.750 to 654.780 and 656.001 to 656.794. To that end, the director may:
“(a) Make and declare all rules which are reasonably required in the performance of the director’s duties.”

ORS 656.726(3) delegates to the director the authority to promulgate rules that are required to carry out the performance of its duties. A rule promulgated under that statute is valid if it is within the range of discretion allowed by the more general policies of the Workers’ Compensation Law. See Planned Parenthood Assn. v. Dept. of Human Res., 297 Or 562, 574, 687 P2d 785 (1984) (citation omitted); ORS 183.400(4)(b). Those policies include the fair and just provision of medical benefits and compensation to injured workers. ORS 656.012. Medical testimony and the payment for it carry out those policies. We hold that ORS 656.726(3) empowers the director to establish rates of payment for medical depositions.

[441]*441We need not address petitioner’s other arguments or assignments of error regarding ORS 656.245 and ORS 656.248.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Planned Parenthood Ass'n v. Department of Human Resources
687 P.2d 785 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
816 P.2d 652, 108 Or. App. 437, 1991 Ore. App. LEXIS 1238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/black-v-department-of-insurance-finance-orctapp-1991.