Workers’ Compensation

ORS 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

(1)

If a worker employed in this state and subject to this chapter temporarily leaves the state incidental to that employment and receives an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of employment, the worker, or beneficiaries of the worker if the injury results in death, is entitled to the benefits of this chapter as though the worker were injured within this state.

(2)

Any worker from another state and the employer of the worker in that other state are exempted from the provisions of this chapter while that worker is temporarily within this state doing work for the employer:

(a)

If that employer has furnished workers’ compensation insurance coverage under the workers’ compensation insurance or similar laws of a state other than Oregon so as to cover that worker’s employment while in this state;

(b)

If the extraterritorial provisions of this chapter are recognized in that other state; and

(c)

If employers and workers who are covered in this state are likewise exempted from the application of the workers’ compensation insurance or similar laws of the other state.
The benefits under the workers’ compensation insurance Act or similar laws of the other state, or other remedies under a like Act or laws, are the exclusive remedy against the employer for any injury, whether resulting in death or not, received by the worker while working for that employer in this state.

(3)

A certificate from the duly authorized officer of the Department of Consumer and Business Services or similar department of another state certifying that the employer of the other state is insured therein and has provided extraterritorial coverage insuring workers while working within this state is prima facie evidence that the employer carries that workers’ compensation insurance.

(4)

Whenever in any appeal or other litigation the construction of the laws of another jurisdiction is required, the courts shall take judicial notice thereof.

(5)

The Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services shall have authority to enter into agreements with the workers’ compensation agencies of other states relating to conflicts of jurisdiction where the contract of employment is in one state and the injuries are received in the other state, or where there is a dispute as to the boundaries or jurisdiction of the states and when such agreements have been executed and made public by the respective state agencies, the rights of workers hired in such other state and injured while temporarily in Oregon, or hired in Oregon and injured while temporarily in another state, or where the jurisdiction is otherwise uncertain, shall be determined pursuant to such agreements and confined to the jurisdiction provided in such agreements.

(6)

When a worker has a claim under the workers’ compensation law of another state, territory, province or foreign nation for the same injury or occupational disease as the claim filed in Oregon, the total amount of compensation paid or awarded under such other workers’ compensation law shall be credited against the compensation due under Oregon workers’ compensation law. The worker shall be entitled to the full amount of compensation due under Oregon law. If Oregon compensation is more than the compensation under another law, or compensation paid the worker under another law is recovered from the worker, the insurer shall pay any unpaid compensation to the worker up to the amount required by the claim under Oregon law. [Amended by 1955 c.723 §1; 1957 c.474 §1; 1977 c.804 §4; 1989 c.684 §1; 1995 c.332 §10; 1997 c.234 §1]

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)

Source

Last accessed
May 26, 2023

REMOVE ADS