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.

Meyers v. Saif Corp.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

April 18, 2018

Mary K. MEYERS, Petitioner,
v.
SAIF CORPORATION and Jadent Incorporated, Respondents.

          Argued and submitted January 31, 2017

          Workers' Compensation Board 1303794;

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

          Beth Cupani argued the cause and fled the brief for respondents.

          Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Chief Judge, and Lagesen, Judge.

         Case Summary:

         Claimant seeks review of an order of the Workers' Compensation Board affirming an order of an administrative law judge upholding SAIF's denial of claimant's claim for an injury she suffered while on her way to an "orientation" before beginning a paid training for work as a telemarketer at SAIF's insured, Jadent Incorporated. Claimant contends that the board's finding that she was not a worker within the meaning of ORS 656.005(30) at the time of her injury is not supported by substantial evidence or substantial reason. Held: The undisputed evidence in the record shows that Jadent invited claimant to come to its office for the orientation and paid training and that claimant came at the required time with the intention of completing the orientation and the training. The board's determination that claimant was not a worker at the time of her injury within the meaning of ORS 656.005(30) therefore is not supported by substantial evidence or substantial reason.

         Reversed and remanded.

         [291 Or.App. 332] EGAN, C. J.

         Claimant seeks review of an order of the Workers' Compensation Board affirming an order of an administrative law judge (ALJ) upholding SAIF's denial of claimant's claim for an injury she suffered while on her way to an "orientation" before beginning a paid training for work as a telemarketer at SAIF's insured, Jadent Incorporated. We conclude that the board's order is not supported by substantial evidence or substantial reason and that the board erred as a matter of law in upholding the denial. We therefore reverse the board and remand for an order determining that the claim is compensable.

         We summarize the facts from the board's findings, which are largely undisputed. Claimant had previously worked as a telemarketer for Crystal Marketing Group (CMG). CMG was going to close its operations and, in November 2011, CMG's owner invited the management of one of its clients, Jadent, to come talk to CMG employees about the possibility of working in telemarketing for Jadent. McClintock, Jadent's Portland branch manager, spoke to a group of CMG employees and invited them to come see him in January 2012. A number of CMG employees, but not claimant, applied for work with Jadent and were hired in January 2012.

         One year later, on January 2, 2013, claimant contacted McClintock, seeking employment. She met with him and completed an application for a telemarketing position, indicating that she had previously worked for Jadent. McClintock clarified with claimant that she had not worked for Jadent but had only worked for CMG, which had performed contract work for Jadent. Claimant also told McClintock that she believed McClintock had promised her a job with Jadent one year before when CMG closed its operations in December 2011; but McClintock explained that he had come to CMG at that time to encourage CMG employees to apply for positions with Jadent but had not promised to hire them.

         When claimant later called to ask about the status of her application, McClintock invited her to return to the office on January 21, 2013, to attend an "orientation" and a [291 Or.App. 333] paid training. The orientation required the presentation of photo identification, the completion of personnel paperwork, and agreement with Jadent's "rules of the office, " including its sexual harassment policy, productivity expectations, and dress code.

         On the day of the orientation and training, claimant arrived at Jadent's office. As she opened a door to a stairwell leading to Jadent's offices, a Jadent employee came through the door, which flew open and struck claimant, knocking her to the floor. Medical imaging revealed a ...


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.