Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.023 (2026)

Who are subject employers

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      656.023 Who are subject employers. Every employer employing one or more subject workers in the state is subject to this chapter. [1965 c.285 §8]

 

      656.024 [Amended by 1959 c.448 §2; repealed by 1965 c.285 §95]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25 cases, 1974–2019 · leading case: Dep't of Consum. & Bus. Servs. v. Clements, 246 P.3d 62 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dep't of Consum. & Bus. Servs. v. Clements, 246 P.3d 62 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 6× “” ORS 656.023 (“[e]very employer employing one or more subject workers in the state is subject to this chapter”).”
SAIF Corp. v. Dep't of Consum. & Bus. Servs. Ins. Div., 284 P.3d 487 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “All “workers” are “subject workers” unless a statutory exception makes them nonsubject.”
Astleford v. SAIF Corp., 874 P.2d 1329 (Or. 1994). · cites it 2× “005(25) defines “subject employer” as “an employer who is subject to this chapter as provided by ORS 656.023.” ORS 656.023 provides: “Every employer employing one or more subject workers[ 4 ] in the state is subject to this chapter.”
Preble v. Centennial Sch. Dist. No. 287, 447 P.3d 42 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). “ORS 656.023 provides that "[e]very employer employing one or more subject workers in the state *367 is subject to this chapter.”
Konell v. Konell, 617 P.2d 313 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 3× “027; and (2) was the employer a subject employer, ORS 656.023. The referee answered both questions in the negative, rejecting the claim.”
DCBS v. Clements, 246 P.3d 62 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 6× “" ORS 656.023 ("[e]very employer employing one or more subject workers in the state is subject to this chapter").”
Silveira v. Larch Enter., 891 P.2d 697 (Or. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “The Board concluded that under ORS 656.023, during the time of claimant's work in California, employer was not a "subject employer" and that, consequently, claimant was not a "subject worker.”
Oregon Drywall Sys., Inc. v. Filings of the Nat'l Council on Comp. Ins., 958 P.2d 195 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). “If the person is a worker, then a determination must be made as to whether the person is a subject worker under ORS 656.023 or a nonsubject worker under ORS 656.”
Blacknall v. Westwood Corp., 764 P.2d 544 (Or. 1988). “” A “subject employer” is defined in ORS 656.023 as follows: “Every employer employing one or more subject workers in the state is subject to ORS 656.”
Bell v. Hartman, 615 P.2d 314 (Or. 1980). “In return for the right to compensation, the subject worker and his beneficiaries are deprived of the legal remedies for injuries which they might otherwise have against his employer. ORS 656.”
Schmidt v. Intel Corp., 112 P.3d 428 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “Chambers and Associates, 310 Or 529, 537 , 800 P2d 766 (1990) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also ORS 656.023 (any employer of “one or more subject workers” subject to workers’ compensation law).”
Power Master, Inc. v. Blanchard, 798 P.2d 691 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). “The second assignment is that the Board erred by concluding that employer is a “subject employer” under ORS 656.023. Obviously, it is. It has permanent employees at the Portland headquarters, for whom it pays premiums to an Oregon workers’ compensation insurer.”
Show all 25 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.