After a hearing, an administrative law judge affirmed SAIF's denial of the claim, reasoning that, at the time of his injury, Mr. Gadalean had not been hired and had not received any kind of remuneration or promise of future remuneration and, therefore, was not a worker entitled to benefits.

The workers' compensation board affirmed, adopting the ALJ's findings of fact. One member dissented, explaining that she considered the trucking company's receipt of Mr. Gadalean's services without remuneration unjust and, therefore, would infer the presence of an implied contract establishing Mr. Gadalean as a worker entitled to workers' compensation. She noted that, although not controlling, the minimum wage statutes supported finding an implied-in-law contract.

The court of appeals reversed the board, concluding that Mr. Gadalean indeed had qualified as a worker at the time of his injury because he had been “put to work.”

The dispute reached the Oregon Supreme Court.

The Oregon Supreme Court's Decision

The court reversed.

In its decision, the court explained that, under ORS 656.005(30), a “worker” is “any person . . . who engages to furnish services for a remuneration.”

The court then ruled that the “most plausible reading of the statute” was that a worker satisfies the definition by demonstrating that (1) he or she undertook an obligation to furnish services; and (2) that he or she did so for – with the expected result of – remuneration.

The court added that because the expectation of remuneration arises out of the circumstances of the claimant's relationship with an alleged employer, the claimant's expectation of remuneration must be “reasonable” in light of the circumstances.

The court then disagreed with the court of appeals' rationale that what Mr. Gadalean did for the trucking company was work; that, under the minimum wage law, a person must be paid for work; and, therefore, that Mr. Gadalean qualified as a worker because he was entitled to remuneration under an implied-in-law contracts theory.

Instead, the court ruled, the question was not whether an agreement required remuneration, but whether, in engaging to furnish services, Mr. Gadalean reasonably expected remuneration.

It then concluded that because the trucking company had told Mr. Gadalean that he would not be paid for the pre-employment driving test, Mr. Gadalean did not qualify as a “worker” under ORS 656.005(30) for purposes of the workers' compensation law.

The case is In re Compensation of Gadalean, No. SC S065203 (Ore. April 18, 2019). Attorneys involved include: Julie Masters, SAIF Corporation, Salem, argued the cause and filed the briefs on behalf of petitioners on review. Julene M. Quinn, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief on behalf of respondent on review.