656.029
Obligation of person awarding contract to provide coverage for workers under
contract; exceptions; effect of failure to provide coverage. (1) If a person awards a contract
involving the performance of labor where such labor is a normal and customary
part or process of the person’s trade or business, the person awarding the
contract is responsible for providing workers’ compensation insurance coverage
for all individuals, other than those exempt under ORS 656.027, who perform
labor under the contract unless the person to whom the contract is awarded
provides such coverage for those individuals before labor under the contract
commences. If an individual who performs labor under the contract incurs a
compensable injury, and no workers’ compensation insurance coverage is provided
for that individual by the person who is charged with the responsibility for
providing such coverage before labor under the contract commences, that person
shall be treated as a noncomplying employer and benefits shall be paid to the
injured worker in the manner provided in this chapter for the payment of
benefits to the worker of a noncomplying employer.
(2) If a person
to whom the contract is awarded is exempt from coverage under ORS 656.027, and
that person engages individuals who are not exempt under ORS 656.027 in the
performance of the contract, that person shall provide workers’ compensation
insurance coverage for all such individuals. If an individual who performs
labor under the contract incurs a compensable injury, and no workers’
compensation insurance coverage is provided for that individual by the person
to whom the contract is awarded, that person shall be treated as a noncomplying
employer and benefits shall be paid to the injured worker in the manner
provided in this chapter for the payment of benefits to the worker of a
noncomplying employer.
(3) As used in
this section:
(a) “Person”
includes partnerships, joint ventures, associations, corporations, limited
liability companies, governmental agencies and sole proprietorships.
(b) “Sole
proprietorship” means a business entity or individual who performs labor
without the assistance of others. [1979 c.864 §2; 1981 c.725 §1; 1981 c.854 §4;
1983 c.397 §1; 1983 c.579 §2a; 1985 c.706 §1; 1989 c.762 §5; 1995 c.93 §34;
1995 c.332 §6a]
656.030 [Repealed by 1959 c.448 §14]
Notes of Decisions
Martelli v. RA Chambers & Assocs., 800 P.2d 766 (Or. 1990).
· cites it 11× “124, the 1935 act was repealed by Oregon Laws 1965, chapter 285, section 95. The legislative rule of 1935 proved too valuable to do without, and its pre-1965 version was re-enacted as Oregon Laws 1979, chapter 864, and codified as ORS 656.”
EBI Companies v. Erzen, 698 P.2d 534 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 8× “Partnerships could also bring their members under the umbrella of protection provided by the Workers’ Compensation Law through a limited exception created under ORS 656.029. Pursuant to that section, any “person,” defined by ORS 656.”
Love v. Nw. Expl. Co., 678 P.2d 754 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 11× “Northwest contends that under ORS 656.029 plaintiff is deemed Northwest’s “subject worker,” and because Northwest was a complying employer, under ORS 656.”
HDG Enter., Inc. v. Filings of the Nat'l Council on Comp. Ins., 856 P.2d 1037 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 3× “Former ORS 656.029(3) (repealed by Or Laws 1989, ch 762, § 5) provided: “A person, other than a partnership engaged in work performed in direct connection with the construction, alteration, repair, improvement, moving or demolition of an improvement on real property or…”
Wood v. Dunn, 818 P.2d 979 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 10× “He found that claimant was an independent contractor but held, nonetheless, that Herwood is liable for claimant’s injury by operation of ORS 656.029. The Board found that Herwood had failed to request a hearing on compensability within 60 days after the date of SAIF’s knowledge…”
Stamp v. Dep't of Consum. & Bus. Servs., 9 P.3d 729 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “The hearings officer then conducted an analysis under ORS 656.029 (governing workers' compensation coverage for individuals who perform labor under a contract) and ORS 656.”
E. W. Eldridge, Inc. v. Becker, 700 P.2d 301 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 8× “After the hearing, the referee concluded, in separate orders, that the claims were governed by Oregon Workers’ Compensation Law and that claimants were subject workers of Eldridge under Oregon’s statutory employer law.”
Astleford v. SAIF Corp., 874 P.2d 1329 (Or. 1994).
“2 The Court of Appeals reasoned, in part: “Employer first argues that the Board erred in refusing to remand for a hearing on his ORS 656.029 argument. That argument, in essence, is that he was not a noncomplying employer.”
K-Mart Corp. v. Claussing, 986 P.2d 1185 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 14× “Our analysis begins with subsection (1) of ORS 656.029, which provides: *561 “If a person awards a contract involving the performance of labor where such labor is a normal and customary part or process of the person’s trade or business, the person awarding the contract is…”
Berkey v. Dep't of Ins. & Fin., 879 P.2d 240 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 2× “t Adam was a subject Oregon worker at the time of his injury; that the injury occurred within the course and scope of his employment; that Cliff was not an independent contractor; that Noah was Adam’s employer; and that even if Cliff had been an independent contractor and Adam’s…”
Clausing v. K-Mart Corp., 926 P.2d 337 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “The question is whether K-Mart is responsible under ORS 656.029(1) for providing workers’ compensation coverage for claimant.”
Martelli v. RA Chambers & Assocs., 783 P.2d 31 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 2× “Defendant argues in the alternative that it should have the same immunity as plaintiffs employer, because it is potentially liable for workers’ compensation for plaintiff *528 under ORS 656.029 and ORS 656.556. 1 It argues that, if it is secondarily liable for compensation to a…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.029(1) — 18 cases
Martelli v. RA Chambers & Assocs., 800 P.2d 766 (Or. 1990).
“124, the 1935 act was repealed by Oregon Laws 1965, chapter 285, section 95. The legislative rule of 1935 proved too valuable to do without, and its pre-1965 version was re-enacted as Oregon Laws 1979, chapter 864, and codified as ORS 656.”
Clausing v. K-Mart Corp., 926 P.2d 337 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
“The question is whether K-Mart is responsible under ORS 656.029(1) for providing workers’ compensation coverage for claimant.”
Wood v. Dunn, 818 P.2d 979 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
“He found that claimant was an independent contractor but held, nonetheless, that Herwood is liable for claimant’s injury by operation of ORS 656.029. The Board found that Herwood had failed to request a hearing on compensability within 60 days after the date of SAIF’s knowledge…”
Berkey v. Dep't of Ins. & Fin., 879 P.2d 240 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
“t Adam was a subject Oregon worker at the time of his injury; that the injury occurred within the course and scope of his employment; that Cliff was not an independent contractor; that Noah was Adam’s employer; and that even if Cliff had been an independent contractor and Adam’s…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.029(2) — 7 cases
EBI Companies v. Erzen, 698 P.2d 534 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).
“Partnerships could also bring their members under the umbrella of protection provided by the Workers’ Compensation Law through a limited exception created under ORS 656.029. Pursuant to that section, any “person,” defined by ORS 656.”
Wood v. Dunn, 818 P.2d 979 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
“He found that claimant was an independent contractor but held, nonetheless, that Herwood is liable for claimant’s injury by operation of ORS 656.029. The Board found that Herwood had failed to request a hearing on compensability within 60 days after the date of SAIF’s knowledge…”
K-Mart Corp. v. Claussing, 986 P.2d 1185 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
“Our analysis begins with subsection (1) of ORS 656.029, which provides: *561 “If a person awards a contract involving the performance of labor where such labor is a normal and customary part or process of the person’s trade or business, the person awarding the contract is…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.029(3) — 1 case
HDG Enter., Inc. v. Filings of the Nat'l Council on Comp. Ins., 856 P.2d 1037 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
“Former ORS 656.029(3) (repealed by Or Laws 1989, ch 762, § 5) provided: “A person, other than a partnership engaged in work performed in direct connection with the construction, alteration, repair, improvement, moving or demolition of an improvement on real property or…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.029(4)(b) — 1 case
Wood v. Dunn, 818 P.2d 979 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
“He found that claimant was an independent contractor but held, nonetheless, that Herwood is liable for claimant’s injury by operation of ORS 656.029. The Board found that Herwood had failed to request a hearing on compensability within 60 days after the date of SAIF’s knowledge…”
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.