398 P.3d 503
Or. Ct. App.2017Background
- Claimant applied for a truck-driver position and was invited for an interview and a customary "safe driving test."
- The test required performing an actual delivery ~30 miles away in an employer truck with a full-time employee (Hanson) riding along.
- Claimant fell while disconnecting hoses and injured his hip; Hanson completed the route and employer picked up an empty container before returning.
- Employer likely received payment for that delivery and Hanson was paid for accompanying the claimant; claimant was not hired.
- SAIF denied workers’ compensation benefits, concluding claimant was not a “subject worker” because he was engaged in a pre-employment evaluation; an ALJ and a divided Board panel affirmed.
- The court reviewed the legal question de novo and the Board’s factual findings for substantial evidence, and reversed, holding claimant was a worker.
Issues
| Issue | Claimant's Argument | Employer/SAIF's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claimant was a “worker” under ORS 656.005(30) when injured during a pre-employment driving evaluation | Claimant performed actual work (an employer delivery) and therefore was "put to work" and entitled to an implied-in-law agreement to pay remuneration | Because the activity was a pre-employment test with only the possibility of future employment and there was no agreement to pay, claimant was not engaged to furnish services for remuneration | Court held claimant was a worker: performing an actual delivery meant he was put to work, so law implies an obligation to pay (implied-in-law contract), making him a "worker" eligible for benefits |
Key Cases Cited
- Rubalcaba v. Nagaki Farms, 333 Or 614 (court reviews legal questions de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence)
- Montez v. Roloff Farms, 175 Or App 532 (an engagement for hire may be based on express or implied contract)
- Staley v. Taylor, 165 Or App 256 (distinguishing contracts implied in fact from those implied in law)
- BBC Brown Boveri v. Lusk, 108 Or App 623 (pre-employment tests may not create a worker-employer relationship)
- Dykes v. SAIF, 47 Or App 187 (pre-employment agility test did not constitute furnishing services for remuneration)
- Rehfeld v. Sedgwick Claims Mgmt. Servs., 283 Or App 288 (minimum-wage statutes do not determine calculation of temporary disability benefits; court did not decide minimum-wage law's relevance to worker status)