SAIF v. Ward

Under former ORS 656.005(30) (2019), a “worker” is “any person, including a minor whether lawfully or unlawfully employed, who engages to furnish services for a renumeration, subject to the direction and control of an employer.”

SAIF petitioned for review and argued that the plain text of the statute and legislative history supports the view that the claimant was exempted from workers’ compensation coverage under ORS 656.027(15). Claimant argued that he was a subject worker and was entitled to workers compensation benefits. Under former ORS 656.005(30) (2019), a “worker” is “any person, including a minor whether lawfully or unlawfully employed, who engages to furnish services for a renumeration, subject to the direction and control of an employer.” SAIF argued that the claimant should be classified as a nonsubject worker because he had a leasehold interest. Claimant argued that he did not have significant leasehold interest that granted him the ability to furnish the truck that he used for work. The Court ruled that to qualify as a subject worker, one must have ownership or leasehold interest that would allow the lessee sufficient authority or control over the equipment to possess and use, or “furnish” that equipment in some way other than in service of the lessor. In this case the lease agreement between BMT and claimant did not convey such an interest. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.