Oregon’s Exclusive Remedy Rules

State Snapshot

BASIC RULE

In Oregon, the sole remedy for an employee who suffers injury, death, or an occupational disease in the course and scope of employment is workers’ compensation. ORS 656.018.

This means that the employee cannot sue the employer in tort (where the employee likely would be able to obtain far greater monetary damages), such as by claiming that the employer’s negligence caused his injury.

INTENTIONAL INJURY EXCEPTION

The exclusive remedy rule does not apply to intentional injuries. This is where the injury or death results to a worker from the deliberate intention of the employer to produce the injury death. In that situation, the injured worker may sue her employer in tort, such as by bringing a negligence or battery claim against the employer. ORS 656.156.

Deliberate intention, means:

1. The employer determined to injure an employee;
2. The employer used some means appropriate to that end; and 
3. There was a specific intent on the part of the employer, and not merely carelessness or negligence, however extreme.

By itself, the repeated failure to rectify an unsafe condition generally does not meet the deliberate intention standard.

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH EQUIPMENT SAFETY NOTICE EXCEPTION

The exclusive remedy rule does not apply where the employer fails to comply with a posted warning or notice regarding equipment safety and this results in injury to the employee.

THIRD PARTY LAWSUITS

The exclusive remedy provision does not apply to lawsuits against third parties, such as property manufacturers and property owners.

EMPLOYER FAILS TO OBTAIN COVERAGE

If the employer has not secured workers' compensation coverage, an injured employee may bring a civil suit against his or her employer.

RECENT CASES

Erickson v. Salem-Keiser School District, No. 6:24-cv-1811-MC (D. Or. 04/04/25)

An instructional assistant for students with disabilities asked the school to call 911 when a student with a history of violence was allegedly attacking her and other staff members. A school administrator cancelled the 911 call request, and the assistant was badly injured. The school district asked the court to dismiss the case based on the exclusivity rule. The court refused. At this early stage of the case, the employee’s claim was sufficiently plausible to allow her to proceed. An employee stated a viable claim that she fell under the deliberate intention exception to the exclusivity rule.

Bundy v. Newstar Group, LLC, 533 P. 3d 21 (Or. 07/07/23)

The claimant sought workers’ compensation benefits for exposure to gasoline vapors. The company paid the claim but denied the employee’s claims for subsequent injuries, contending they were not caused by the exposure to vapors. The claimant sued for negligence and the company asked the court to throw out the claim based on the exclusive remedy provision. The claimant, in turn, argued that ORS 656.019 established an exception to the exclusive-remedy provision. ORS 656.019 states that an injured worker "may pursue" a civil action for injuries deemed non-compensable on major-contributing-cause grounds "only after" a final order of denial. That provision, the court said, did not create an exception to the exclusive remedy rule. Instead, it simply stated a procedural rule for bringing a negligence claim. The court dismissed the negligence claim.

Looking for info on exclusive remedy rules in your state? Turn to Simply Research.

Share This Article: