Hunnicutt v. Dollarhyde
Opinion
The referee found that claimant is not a subject worker under ORS 656.027 and held that Dollarhyde is not, therefore, a noncomplying employer. ORS 656.023. Claimant has petitioned for judicial review of that order under ORS ch 183.
SAIF concedes that Dollarhyde is an employer under ORS 656.029(1).1 Both Dollarhyde and the referee misread ORS 656.027(3)2 to exclude as subject workers casual employes. That subsection refers to casual employment. That one’s employment is casual does not deprive an employe of protection, if the employment is in the course of the trade, business or profession of the employer.
Reversed; remanded to the referee for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
768 P.2d 444 (Hunnicutt v. Dollarhyde) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.