Who are subject workers
Source:
Section 656.027 — Who are subject workers, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors656.html.
Notes of Decisions
“Domestic service” refers to performance primarily of household duties and chores; maintenance of home; and care, comfort and convenience of household members. Gunter v. Mersereau, 7 Or App 470, 491 P2d 1205 (1971)
Where nature of employment is in course of business, trade or profession of subject employer, employment will not qualify as casual regardless of casual nature of particular employee’s employment. Buckner v. Kennedy’s Riding Academy, 18 Or App 516, 526 P2d 450 (1974), Sup Ct review denied; Hunnicutt v. Dollarhyde, 95 Or App 375, 768 P2d 444 (1989)
Employer “business” includes enterprises that are temporary or engaged in as sideline activity. Carlile v. Greeninger, 35 Or App 51, 580 P2d 588 (1978), Sup Ct review denied; Fincham v. Wendt, 59 Or App 416, 651 P2d 159 (1982), Sup Ct review denied
Where employee is subject worker when performing principal duties, employee does not cease to be subject worker upon engaging in minor amounts of exempt work. Anfilofieff v. SAIF, 52 Or App 127, 627 P2d 1274 (1981); Gordon v. Farrell, 85 Or App 590, 737 P2d 654 (1987), Sup Ct review denied
County jail inmates performing work authorized by ORS 169.320 were not subject workers where county had not filed election of coverage required by ORS 656.041. Westfall v. Multnomah County, 57 Or App 459, 645 P2d 561 (1982)
Cooperative organization was not exempt from workers’ compensation coverage as partnership where workers could be excluded from partnership at will by other members and worker control was through elected representatives. Associated Reforestation Contractors v. Workers Comp. Bd., 59 Or App 348, 650 P2d 1068 (1982), Sup Ct review denied
Whether work on buildings “about” private home falls under exemption depends on whether buildings were used for private or business purpose. Fincham v. Wendt, 59 Or App 416, 651 P2d 159 (1982), Sup Ct review denied
Statutory language and public policy implicit in Workers’ Compensation Act prohibit award of compensation for injuries suffered by worker employed by contract to engage in criminal activities. DePew v. SAIF, 74 Or App 557, 703 P2d 259 (1985)
Claimant’s receipt of benefits under the Longshoreman’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act excludes him from coverage under ORS chapter 656. State v. SAIF Corporation, 91 Or App 715, 756 P2d 76 (1988)
Fact that employment is casual does not deprive employee of protection if employment is in course of trade, business or profession of employer. Hunnicutt v. Dollarhyde, 95 Or App 375, 768 P2d 444 (1989)
Householder exemption is limited to work similar to listed types and performed in or around an already existing private home. Caddy v. SAIF, 110 Or App 353, 822 P2d 156 (1991)
Within context of general premium audit, whether payment was for board and lodging received from charitable organization depended on predominant use of payment by recipient group. Oregon Country Fair v. Natl. Council on Comp. Ins., 129 Or App 73, 877 P2d 1207 (1994)
Initial determination is whether person is worker under ORS 656.005, then determination is made whether person found to be worker is nonsubject worker. S-W Floor Cover Shop v. Natl. Council on Comp. Ins., 318 Or 614, 872 P2d 1 (1994)
For holder of leasehold interest to also be person who “maintains” equipment, person must have substantial interest in equipment requiring responsibility for maintenance to same extent as owner or other individual having financial investment in equipment. Broadway Deluxe Cab v. Natl. Council on Comp. Ins., 133 Or App 324, 891 P2d 1326 (1995), Sup Ct review denied
Employer is not required to be occupying home at time of injury for private home exception to apply. Blevins v. Mitchell, 138 Or App 29, 906 P2d 293 (1995)
Application of casual employment wage limit to “any 30-day period” makes employer subject to insurance requirement if wages have ever exceeded limit, notwithstanding that wages were below limit during 30-day period surrounding injury. Deer Lodge Apartments v. Hartman, 156 Or App 634, 966 P2d 245 (1998)
Oregon employer’s employee who is injured while working permanently outside Oregon is not subject worker. Nelson v. SAIF, 212 Or App 627, 159 P3d 379 (2007), Sup Ct review denied
Where requirement of leasehold interest in equipment was not satisfied independently from distinct requirement that claimant furnish equipment, exemption did not apply; thus, claimant truck driver was subject worker. SAIF v. Ward, 307 Or App 337, 477 P3d 429 (2020), aff’d 369 Or 384, __ P3d __ (2022)
Law Review Citations
27 WLR 110 (1991); 32 WLR 217 (1996)
Up to date