Hunnicutt v. Dollarhyde

768 P.2d 444, 95 Or. App. 375
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedFebruary 22, 1989
DocketWCB Nos. 87-18715, 87-18716; CA A48528
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 768 P.2d 444 (Hunnicutt v. Dollarhyde) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hunnicutt v. Dollarhyde, 768 P.2d 444, 95 Or. App. 375 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).

Opinion

PER CURIAM

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

Related

Cortes v. Wyland
810 P.2d 1349 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
768 P.2d 444, 95 Or. App. 375, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunnicutt-v-dollarhyde-orctapp-1989.