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, 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]
656.130 [Amended by 1957 c.574 §3;
repealed by 1959 c.448 §14]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
28
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1954–2025 · leading case:
State v. Reed, 21 P.3d 137 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
State v. Reed, 21 P.3d 137 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 4× “In Marshall , the court addressed the context of the “corroborative evidence” requirement of ORS 656.128(3), 8 the workers’ compensation “sole proprietor claim” provision: “Turning to ‘corroborative evidence,’ we agree with the Court of Appeals’ definition of that phrase, as…”
State Accident Ins. Fund Corp. v. Gygi, 639 P.2d 655 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 2× “On the basis of the above authorities, in my view it would be an unwarranted expansion of workers compensation to rule in the case at bar that claimant is presently suffering from a bona fide occupational disease and to charge these claim costs to the State Accident Insurance…”
Marshall v. SAIF Corp., 931 P.2d 823 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 12× “She elected workers’ compensation coverage for herself under ORS 656.128(1) and (2). In April 1992, she filed a claim for a right arm and shoulder injury, which she alleged was caused by her work.”
Reynolds v. Harbert, 275 P.2d 245 (Or. 1962).
· cites it 6× “In connection with his trucking business he had obtained coverage under Workmen’s Compensation for his workmen, but had failed to avail himself of the same coverage under ORS 656.128 for any injuries he himself might suffer on the job.”
SAIF Corp. v. Marshall, 882 P.2d 1115 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 15× “ORS 656.128 reads: “(1) Any person who is a sole proprietor, oramember of a partnership, may make written application to an insurer to become entitled as a subject worker to compensation benefits.”
Marshall v. SAIF Corp., 968 P.2d 1281 (Or. 1998).
· cites it 20× “She elected workers’ compensation coverage for herself with SAIF Corporation (SAIF) under ORS 656.128. In 1991, claimant began to notice pain in her right hand and arm.”
Nordling v. Johnston, 287 P.2d 420 (Or. 1955).
“ORS 656.128. ON REHEARING ON PETITION FOR REHEARING *338 Barzee, Leedy, Keane & Erwin, Portland, for the motion.”
Didier v. State Indus. Accident Comm'n, 414 P.2d 325 (Or. 1966).
· cites it 2× “ORS 656.128. The basis of the widow’s claim in this case, which was rejected by the Commission but accepted by the court below, is that the decedent automatically became a covered employe of LaRue for the purposes of the statute when LaRue, being himself a covered employer,…”
HDG Enter., Inc. v. Filings of the Nat'l Council on Comp. Ins., 856 P.2d 1037 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
“042, is conclusively presumed to be an independent contractor and is not eligible to receive benefits under this chapter unless the person has obtained coverage for such benefits pursuant to ORS 656.128.” (Emphasis supplied.) Employer asserts that during some or all of the…”
EBI Companies v. Erzen, 698 P.2d 534 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “Although partners were therefore not considered “subject workers,” members of a partnership could elect to become subject workers under ORS 656.128 1 and could thereby become eligible to receive workers’ compensation benefits.”
Maroon v. Great W. Constr., 811 P.2d 1389 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 4× “Claimant seeks review of a Workers’ Compensation Board order affirming the referee’s denial of her claim on the ground that she was a sole proprietor and had not elected coverage for herself pursuant to ORS 656.128. 1 In 1986, claimant began working as a bookkeeper for Mike…”
Pilling v. Travelers Ins. Co. (In re Pilling), 412 P.3d 252 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 6× “" ORS 656.128 permits an application for coverage by a sole proprietor or partner: "(1) Any person who is a sole proprietor *** or a member of a partnership *** may make written application to an insurer to become entitled as a subject worker to compensation benefits.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.128(1) — 7 cases
EBI Companies v. Erzen, 698 P.2d 534 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).
“Although partners were therefore not considered “subject workers,” members of a partnership could elect to become subject workers under ORS 656.128 1 and could thereby become eligible to receive workers’ compensation benefits.”
Pilling v. Travelers Ins. Co. (In re Pilling), 412 P.3d 252 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“" ORS 656.128 permits an application for coverage by a sole proprietor or partner: "(1) Any person who is a sole proprietor *** or a member of a partnership *** may make written application to an insurer to become entitled as a subject worker to compensation benefits.”
Marshall v. SAIF Corp., 931 P.2d 823 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
“She elected workers’ compensation coverage for herself under ORS 656.128(1) and (2). In April 1992, she filed a claim for a right arm and shoulder injury, which she alleged was caused by her work.”
Maroon v. Great W. Constr., 811 P.2d 1389 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
“Claimant seeks review of a Workers’ Compensation Board order affirming the referee’s denial of her claim on the ground that she was a sole proprietor and had not elected coverage for herself pursuant to ORS 656.128. 1 In 1986, claimant began working as a bookkeeper for Mike…”
SAIF Corp. v. Marshall, 882 P.2d 1115 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
“ORS 656.128 reads: “(1) Any person who is a sole proprietor, oramember of a partnership, may make written application to an insurer to become entitled as a subject worker to compensation benefits.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.128(2) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.128(3) — 5 cases
State v. Reed, 21 P.3d 137 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“In Marshall , the court addressed the context of the “corroborative evidence” requirement of ORS 656.128(3), 8 the workers’ compensation “sole proprietor claim” provision: “Turning to ‘corroborative evidence,’ we agree with the Court of Appeals’ definition of that phrase, as…”
Marshall v. SAIF Corp., 931 P.2d 823 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
“She elected workers’ compensation coverage for herself under ORS 656.128(1) and (2). In April 1992, she filed a claim for a right arm and shoulder injury, which she alleged was caused by her work.”
Marshall v. SAIF Corp., 968 P.2d 1281 (Or. 1998).
“She elected workers’ compensation coverage for herself with SAIF Corporation (SAIF) under ORS 656.128. In 1991, claimant began to notice pain in her right hand and arm.”
SAIF Corp. v. Marshall, 882 P.2d 1115 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
“ORS 656.128 reads: “(1) Any person who is a sole proprietor, oramember of a partnership, may make written application to an insurer to become entitled as a subject worker to compensation benefits.”
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.