Case Name: In the Matter of the Petition of Wayne E. COGHILL, dba Allstate Siding Supply Co., Petitioner, v. The filings of the NATIONAL COUNCIL ON COMPENSATION INSURANCE, Respondent below, and SAIF CORPORATION, Respondent
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1998-11-04
Citations: 157 Or. App. 125
Docket Number: INS 93-09-026; CA A96550
Parties: In the Matter of the Petition of Wayne E. COGHILL, dba Allstate Siding Supply Co., Petitioner, v. The filings of the NATIONAL COUNCIL ON COMPENSATION INSURANCE, Respondent below, and SAIF CORPORATION, Respondent.
Judges: Before Edmonds, Presiding Judge, and Armstrong, Judge, and Warden, Senior Judge.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 157
Pages: 125–127

Head Matter:
On petitioner’s petition for reconsideration filed September 16,
reconsideration allowed; opinion (155 Or App 601, 964 P2d 1085 (1998)) modified and adhered to as modified November 4, 1998,
petition for review denied March 23,1999 (328 Or 365)
In the Matter of the Petition of Wayne E. COGHILL, dba Allstate Siding Supply Co., Petitioner, v. The filings of the NATIONAL COUNCIL ON COMPENSATION INSURANCE, Respondent below, and SAIF CORPORATION, Respondent.
(INS 93-09-026; CA A96550)
966 P2d 830
Charles M. Fryer for the petition.
Before Edmonds, Presiding Judge, and Armstrong, Judge, and Warden, Senior Judge.
ARMSTRONG, J.

Opinion:
ARMSTRONG, J.
Petitioner seeks reconsideration of our decision in Coghill v. Natl. Council on Comp. Ins., 155 Or App 601, 964 P2d 1085 (1998), in which we upheld a determination that petitioner was required to provide workers' compensation coverage for certain siding installers in his employ. Petitioner contends that we made a factual error when we stated that "[t]he record before us does not show that installers worked with or for any other parties during the audit period." We agree with petitioner that there is information in the record to support a finding that the installers worked for other people during the audit period. Hence, we modify our earlier opinion to delete the quoted sentence. The deletion of the sentence does not change the reasoning on which we relied to uphold the agency's decision, and we adhere to our opinion as modified.
Reconsideration allowed; opinion modified and adhered to as modified.
Petitioner also seeks reconsideration in a companion case, Coghill v. Natl. Council on Comp. Ins., 155 Or App 638, 964 P2d 1090 (1998). We have denied that petition by order this date.