- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Workers Compensation
- Date Filed: 06-14-2017
- Case #: A161887
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Garrett, J. for the Court; Duncan, P.J.; & DeVore, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Claimant sought judicial review of a Worker’s Compensation Board (the Board) order denying benefits. Claimant assigned error to the Board’s finding that at the time of injury, he was not a “subject worker”. Claimant argued that he qualifies as a “worker” because he performed assigned tasks for the employer during a pre-employment evaluation in which he sustained injury. The Board determined that the he was not a subject worker because he did not make an “agreement for remuneration”. Under ORS 656.005(30), a “worker” is “any person, including a minor whether lawfully or unlawfully employed, who engages to furnish services for a remuneration, subject to the direction and control of an employer." Id. The Court of Appeals held that a formal agreement is irrelevant because the fact that Claimant performed work tasks given by the employer implies an agreement to pay remuneration. Reversed and remanded.