In the Matter of the Compensation of Cozmin I. Gadalean, Claimant.
SAIF CORPORATION and Imperial Trucking, Inc., Petitioners on Review. Cozmin I. GADALEAN, Respondent on Review,
and submitted May 10, 2018
review from the Court of Appeals (WCB 14-03356) (CA A161887).
Masters, SAIF Corporation, Salem, argued the cause and filed
the briefs on behalf of petitioners on review.
M. Quinn, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief on
behalf of respondent on review.
Walters, Chief Justice, and Balmer, Nakamoto, Flynn, and
Nelson, Justices, and Landau, Senior Justice pro t empore.
Or. 708] Case Summary:
a commercial truck driver, was injured when he fell from
employer's truck during a pre-employment drive test that
consisted of an actual delivery for an employer. The
Workers' Compensation Board denied claimant coverage,
concluding that he did not qualify as a worker at the time of
the injury. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that
Oregon's minimum wage laws would have entitled claimant
to be paid for the delivery and that, therefore, he was a
worker within the meaning of the workers' compensation
was not a worker within the meaning of ORS 656.005(30)
because he did not reasonably expect a remuneration in
exchange for completing the driving test.
decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed. The order of
the Workers' Compensation Board is affirmed.
Or. 709] NELSON, J.
case requires us to decide whether the definition of
"worker" in the Workers' Compensation Law
encompasses a claimant injured during a pre-employment drive
test that consisted of an actual delivery for an employer. To
qualify for workers' compensation, a claimant must be a
"worker." ORS 656.027. ORS 656.005(30) defines
"worker," in part, as a person "who engages to
furnish services for a remuneration." Claimant, a
commercial truck driver, was sent on a supervised delivery by
and for employer as a pre-employment drive test. He was
injured when he fell from employer's truck. The
Workers' Compensation Board (the board) denied claimant
coverage, concluding that he did not qualify as a worker at
the time of the injury. The Court of Appeals reversed,
holding that Oregon's minimum wage laws would have
entitled claimant to be paid for the delivery and that,
therefore, he was a worker within the meaning of the
workers' compensation statute. Gadalean v. SAIF,
286 Or.App. 227, 398 P.3d 503 (2017). For the reasons that
follow, we conclude that the Court of Appeals erred, and we
affirm the board's denial of coverage.
the historical facts from the board's findings set out in
its order. Those include the earlier findings of an
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), which the board adopted along
with its own factual summary.
2014, claimant responded to employer's job advertisement
for a truck driver position. He applied for the position by
email and submitted his resume online. He also completed a
drug screen and provided employer with copies of his current
Commercial Driver's License, medical card, social
security card, and DMV records, along with the results of the
thereafter, employer's owner, Van Hyning, had claimant
come to his office for an interview, where they discussed his
application and the requirements of the job. Claimant was
scheduled to take a mandatory U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT) pre-employment [364 Or. 710] driving
test. The board found that no offer of employment was made
during that meeting.
4, 2014, claimant met with Hanson, one of employer's
truck drivers, for the driving test. Claimant drove one of
employer's trucks, with Hanson as a passenger, to a
designated delivery location. While disconnecting hoses from
the trailer at that location, claimant fell four or five feet
from the truck to the ground. He landed on his left hip and
experienced significant pain. Claimant's injury rendered
him unable to drive the truck, and Hanson drove to the next
stop, where they picked up an empty container before
returning to employer's premises.
Hyning did not ask claimant to come back to finish the
driving test. Claimant did not fill out any employment tax
forms. He did not receive any written offer of employment.
the accident, claimant sought medical treatment for his
injury and was diagnosed with left hip strain. On June 10,
2014, claimant filed an injury claim with SAIF, alleging that
he had injured himself on June 4, while working for employer
as a truck driver. Claimant also submitted Workers'
Compensation Form 801 to employer. On that form, under
"date worker hired," employer wrote
"pre-employment driving test," because claimant had
not been hired yet and the driving test and evaluative
process had been unpaid work.
of SAIF's investigation of his claim, claimant told a
SAIF investigator that he had understood that Van Hyning had
"want[ed] to evaluate me," which was why he had
sent claimant with another driver. Claimant did not know
whether June 4 had been considered a training day or a
preemployment evaluation day. As he understood it, the
agreement was that Van Hyning would assess how he performed
on June 4, and, if he passed, he would "continue
working." Claimant also told the investigator that he
had not received any written offer of employment nor filled
out any employment tax form.
denied compensability of the claim, asserting that claimant
had not been a subject worker at the time of [364 Or. 711]
the injury because he had not met the definition of
"worker" in ORS 656.005(30). On claimant's
request, an ALJ later conducted a hearing, at which he
considered the ...