Workers' Compensation

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

  • cancellation


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.


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.


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


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)

§§ 656.001 to 656.794

Law Review Citations

55 OLR 432-445 (1976); 16 WLR 519 (1979); 22 WLR 559 (1986)

Chapter 656

Notes of Decisions

Party having affirmative of any issue must prove it by preponderance of evidence unless legislature fixes some different quantum of proof. Hutcheson v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 288 Or 51, 602 P2d 268 (1979)

Amendments to existing statutes and enactment of additional statutes by 1995 legislation generally apply to pending cases and to orders still appealable on June 7, 1995, effective date. Volk v. America West Airlines, 135 Or App 565, 899 P2d 746 (1995), Sup Ct review denied

Amendments to existing statutes and enactment of additional statutes by 1995 legislation do not extend or shorten procedural time limitations with regard to actions taken prior to June 7, 1995, effective date. Motel 6 v. McMasters, 135 Or App 583, 899 P2d 1212 (1995)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Benefit unavailability for inmates engaged in prison work programs, (1996) Vol 48, p 134

Law Review Citations

24 WLR 321, 341 (1988); 32 WLR 217 (1996)


Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021