Opinion ID: 1161767
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the workers' compensation statutes

Text: ORS 656.005(27) defines a worker as    any person    who engages to furnish services for a remuneration, subject to the direction and control of an employer   . There is no doubt that the plaintiff was a worker. A subject worker is defined in ORS 656.005(25) as a worker who is subject to this chapter   . There is no question but that the plaintiff was a subject worker. An employer is defined in former ORS 656.005(14) (now ORS 656.005(13)) as    any person    who contracts to pay a remuneration for and secures the right to direct and control the services of any person. The defendant was an employer. 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 656.001 to 656.794. The defendant was a subject employer. To this point there is little dispute. The plaintiff was a worker and a subject worker. The defendant was an employer and a subject employer. The duties of a subject employer are set forth in ORS 656.017. It provides: (1) Every employer subject to this chapter shall maintain assurance with the director that subject workers of the employer and their beneficiaries will receive compensation for compensable injuries as provided by this chapter and that the employer will perform all duties and pay other obligations required under this chapter, by qualifying: (a) As a carrier-insured employer; or (b) As a self-insured employer as provided by ORS 656.407. (Emphasis added.) ORS 656.018(1)(a) grants a quid pro quo to complying employers: The liability of every employer who satisfies the duty required by ORS 656.017(1) is exclusive and in place of all other liability arising out of compensable injuries to the subject workers, the workers' beneficiaries and anyone otherwise entitled to recover damages from the employer on account of such injuries or claims resulting therefrom, specifically including claims for contribution or indemnity asserted by third persons from whom damages are sought on account of such injuries, except as specifically provided otherwise in ORS 656.001 to 656.794. Two other statutes merit mention. ORS 656.005(18) defines a noncomplying employer as a subject employer who has failed to comply with ORS 656.017. ORS 656.020(1) provides for actions against noncomplying employers as follows: Actions for damages may be brought by an injured worker or the legal representative of the injured worker against any employer who has failed to comply with ORS 656.017 or is in default under ORS 656.560. Except for the provisions of ORS 656.578 to 656.593 and this section, such noncomplying employer is liable as the non-complying employer would have been if ORS 656.001 to 656.794 had never been enacted. We turn then to consider these questions. 1. Was the plaintiff a subject worker of the defendant under ORS 656.017? 2. Was the defendant a noncomplying employer, i.e., had the defendant failed to comply with ORS 656.017?