OTA Dispatch Issue 3 2019

33 www.ortrucking.org Issue 3 | 2019 claim, determining the driver met the statutory exemption requirements and was therefore, not a subject employee of the motor carrier. The driver appealed SAIF’s denial and the case went to a hearing. The administrative law judge examined the lease and concluded that the driver met the legal requirements to be exempt from coverage. This meant that the driver was not covered by the carrier’s policy with SAIF. The driver appealed the decision to the Workers’ Compensation Board, which reversed the order, concluding that the driver was a worker subject to workers’ compensation coverage. The Board stated that the exemption for truck drivers under workers’ compensation law was very similar to an exemption for truck drivers in unemployment insurance law. The Board relied on similarities between the exemptions in the two laws to decide that the injured driver’s leasehold interest in the truck was not sufficient to allow him to “furnish” it to the carrier. The Board’s order found the driver’s injury to be covered by workers’ compensation. SAIF has appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, noting the unemployment insurance exemption has minor but significant differences in wording from the workers’ compensation exemption—which the Board did not reference in their decision. The appeal is expected to take at least a year. In the meantime, the case raises questions about whether trucking companies with this kind of arrangement should be paying workers’ compensation premiums on the drivers—and whether they are noncompliant if they’re not paying those premiums. Talk with your underwriter if you have any questions about how this case impacts your workers’ comp policy.  Julie Masters is an appellate attorney with SAIF Corporation and is a 1996 graduate of the University of Oregon School of Law.