Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Compensation of Gadalean

Court of Appeals of Oregon

June 14, 2017

In the Matter of the Compensation of Cozmin I. Gadalean, Claimant.
v.
SAIF CORPORATION and Imperial Trucking, Inc., Respondents. Cozmin I. GADALEAN, Petitioner,

          Argued and submitted April 26, 2017

         Workers' Compensation Board 1403356

          Julene M. Quinn argued the cause and fled the briefs for petitioner.

          Lea Kear argued the cause and fled the brief for respondents.

          Before Duncan, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and Garrett, Judge.

         Case Summary:

         Claimant seeks judicial review of a Workers' Compensation Board order that concluded that claimant was not eligible for benefits because he was not a "worker" at the time of his injury within the meaning of ORS 656.005(30). As part of his application for a position as a truck driver, claimant participated in a "safe driving test" that involved performing an actual delivery for employer under the supervision of a full-time employee, Hanson. Hanson was compensated for his time accompanying claimant, and employer was most likely paid for the delivery that occurred during claimant's test. During the course of that delivery, claimant fell and injured his hip. SAIF denied claimant's claim for a left hip injury; a divided panel of the board affirmed the denial, concluding that, because claimant was engaged in a preemployment evaluation with only the possibility of future employment, claimant had not established that he was "engage[d] to furnish services for a remuneration" for purposes of ORS 656.005(30).

         Held:

         Although claimant was engaged in a preemployment evaluation, in the course of that evaluation, claimant was actually "put to work" and performed services for employer. Under those circumstances, the law implies the existence of an agreement to provide "services for a remuneration."

         Reversed and remanded.

         [286 Or.App. 228] GARRETT, J.

         Claimant seeks judicial review of a Workers' Compensation Board order that concluded that claimant was not eligible for benefits because he was not a "subject worker" at the time of his injury. The issue on appeal is whether the board correctly ruled that claimant was not a worker at the relevant time because he was engaged in a preemployment evaluation. Claimant acknowledges that he was engaged in an evaluation in anticipation of permanent employment, but contends that, in the course of that evaluation, he was actually "put to work" and performed services for employer, which is sufficient to establish that he "engage[d] to furnish services for a remuneration" within the meaning of ORS 656.005(30).[1] We agree with claimant, and reverse and remand the board's order.

         The relevant facts are taken from the board's order on reconsideration. Claimant applied for a position as a truck driver. Employer's owner, Van Hyning, invited claimant to his office for an interview, where they discussed claimant's application and the requirements of the job. Consistently with employer's customary practice, claimant then participated in a "safe driving test" that involved performing an actual delivery in a "real-world situation[] with an experienced driver." Claimant drove one of employer's delivery trucks, with a full-time employee, Hanson, as a passenger, to a designated delivery location approximately 30 miles away. In the course of disconnecting hoses from the trailer, claimant fell and injured his hip. Because claimant's injury rendered him unable to drive, Hanson drove to the next stop, where they picked up an empty container before returning to employer's premises.

         The record reflects that employer was most likely paid for the delivery that occurred during claimant's test.[2] [286 Or.App. 229] Hanson was compensated for his time accompanying claimant. According to Van Hyning, both things would have been true if claimant had not been present; the only difference that claimant's presence made was that Hanson had the opportunity to observe and evaluate his driving. Van Hyning thus ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.