Workers’ Compensation

ORS 656.128
Sole proprietors, limited liability company members, partners, independent contractors may elect coverage by insurer

  • cancellation

(1)

Any person who is a sole proprietor, or a member, including a member who is a manager, of a limited liability company, or a member of a partnership, or an independent contractor pursuant to ORS 670.600 (Independent contractor defined), may make written application to an insurer to become entitled as a subject worker to compensation benefits. Thereupon, the insurer may accept such application and fix a classification and an assumed monthly wage at which such person shall be carried on the payroll as a worker for purposes of computations under this chapter.

(2)

When the application is accepted, such person thereupon is subject to the provisions and entitled to the benefits of this chapter. The person shall promptly notify the insurer whenever the status of the person as an employer of subject workers changes. Any subject worker employed by such a person after the effective date of the election of the person shall, upon being employed, be considered covered automatically by the same workers’ compensation insurance policy that covers such person.

(3)

No claim shall be allowed or paid under this section, except upon corroborative evidence in addition to the evidence of the claimant.

(4)

Any person subject to this chapter as a worker as provided in this section may cancel such election by giving written notice to the insurer. The cancellation shall become effective at 12 midnight ending the day of filing the notice with the insurer. [Amended by 1957 c.440 §2; 1959 c.448 §12; 1965 c.285 §18; 1969 c.400 §1; 1975 c.556 §23; 1981 c.854 §9; 1981 c.876 §3; 1993 c.777 §11; 1995 c.93 §33; 1995 c.332 §11; 2007 c.241 §9]

Notes of Decisions

Written application for coverage is not required to be in particular form. SAIF v. D’Lyn, 74 Or App 64, 701 P2d 470 (1985)

Corroborative evidence requirement refers to corroboration of compensability. SAIF v. Marshall, 130 Or App 507, 882 P2d 1115 (1994), Sup Ct review denied

Evidence corroborates compensability if making either “arising out of” or “in course of” prong of compensability more certain. Marshall v. SAIF, 146 Or App 50, 931 P2d 823 (1997), aff’d on other grounds, 328 Or 49, 968 P2d 1281 (1998)

Medical opinion of treating physician that relies in part on medical history supplied by claimant is “in addition” to claimant’s evidence. Marshall v. SAIF, 146 Or App 50, 931 P2d 823 (1997), aff’d on other grounds, 328 Or 49, 968 P2d 1281 (1998)

Claimant who is sole proprietor satisfies corroboration requirement by providing any evidence--separate from claimant statements--that supplements, strengthens and confirms that injury exists and is work related. Marshall v. SAIF, 328 Or 49, 968 P2d 1281 (1998)

Where owner of sole proprietorship applied in writing for workers’ compensation insurance for employee, and owner included nature of business and information about employee’s duties and wages, application met requirements of this section. Pilling v. Travelers Insurance Company, 365 Or 236, 444 P3d 1104 (2019)

Source

Last accessed
May 30, 2023

REMOVE ADS