Coverage while temporarily in or out of state
- judicial notice of other state’s laws
- agreements between states relating to conflicts of jurisdiction
- limitation on compensation for claims in this state and other jurisdictions
Source:
Section 656.126 — Coverage while temporarily in or out of state; judicial notice of other state’s laws; agreements between states relating to conflicts of jurisdiction; limitation on compensation for claims in this state and other jurisdictions, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors656.html.
Notes of Decisions
Oregon has jurisdiction where worker is employed in this state by employer contributing to fund, whether or not work temporarily will be performed within state. Kolar v. B & C Contractors, 36 Or App 65, 583 P2d 562 (1978)
Fact that Oregon worker temporarily performing work outside state filed unsuccessful initial claim in state where injury occurred did not affect Oregon jurisdiction over claim when later filed in Oregon. Kolar v. B & C Contractors, 36 Or App 65, 583 P2d 562 (1978)
Employment in Oregon does not confer jurisdiction where work performance is permanently conducted outside state. Langston v. K-Mart, 56 Or App 709, 642 P2d 1205 (1982), Sup Ct review denied
Where worker was performing work for Washington-based employer in Oregon on temporary basis, fact that all pre-injury job performance was in Oregon did not confer Oregon jurisdiction. Phelan v. H.S.C. Logging, Inc., 84 Or App 632, 735 P2d 22 (1987), Sup Ct review denied
Principal location of employee’s work duties, rather than location of employer’s operational headquarters, determines whether worker is Oregon employee. Power Master, Inc. v. National Council on Comp. Ins., 109 Or App 296, 820 P2d 459 (1991)
Where location of job duty performance is inconclusive, worker status is determined by location of employer’s operational headquarters. Power Master, Inc. v. National Council on Comp. Ins., 109 Or App 296, 820 P2d 459 (1991)
In determining extent that claimant’s work outside state is temporary, relevant factors are: 1) intent of employer; 2) understanding of employee; 3) location of employer and facilities; 4) circumstances surrounding claimant’s work assignment; 5) laws and regulations binding employer; and 6) residence of employee. Northwest Greentree, Inc. v. Cervantes-Ochoa, 113 Or App 186, 830 P2d 627 (1992)
Where board determined that claimant was covered under Washington law as Washington employee doing temporary work in Oregon, claimant was exempt worker notwithstanding contrary finding by Washington board that claimant was not covered under that state’s laws. Haney v. Union Forest Products, 129 Or App 13, 877 P2d 651 (1994)
Where worker is working at nontemporary workplace, interstate agreement does not replace permanent employment relation test for determining Oregon coverage. Carothers v. Robert Westlund Construction, 149 Or App 457, 944 P2d 966 (1997)
Up to date