Little Donkey Enterprises, Inc. v. Saif

7 Citing cases

  1. Randall v. Ocean View Construction Co.

    196 Or. App. 153 (Or. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 2 times

    See ORS 174.010. We made the above point clear in Little Donkey Enterprises, Inc. v. SAIF, 118 Or App 54, 58, 845 P2d 1298, modified on other grounds on recons, 121 Or App 643, 856 P2d 323 (1993), in which we held that a person may function simultaneously as the sole proprietor of one business (an independent contractor) and as an employee of another business for purposes of the workers' compensation law. The dissent pushes aside our decision in Little Donkey Enterprises, Inc., asserting that the legislature's subsequent adoption of the conclusive presumption in ORS 656.027(7)(b) legislatively overruled our reasoning.

  2. Little Donkey Enterprises, Inc. v. Saif

    121 Or. App. 643 (Or. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 4 times
    Explaining the ICC's position

    88-11-01; CA A72333On petitioner's petition for reconsideration filed May 19, 1993 Reconsideration allowed; opinion ( 118 Or. App. 54, 845 P.2d 1298) modified; reversed and remanded for reconsideration July 14, 1993 Judicial Review from Department of Insurance and Finance.

  3. Reforestation General v. Natl. Council on Comp

    127 Or. App. 153 (Or. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 8 times
    In Reforestation General Contractors, Inc. v. National Council on Comp. Ins., 872 P.2d 423 (Or. Ct. App. 1994), a worker's compensation case, a logging consultant specified the contract completion time for the loggers he hired, marked land boundaries or the timber to be cut, and supervised the contracts.

    Petitioner first relies on Little Donkey Enterprises, Inc. v. SAIF, 107 Or. App. 400, 812 P.2d 25 (1991), to argue that each logger was a sole proprietor and, as such, ORS 656.027(7) ( since amended by Or Laws 1989, ch 762, § 4) exempts them from the workers' compensation statutes, regardless of whether they qualified as independent contractors. That decision, however, was overruled in Little Donkey Enterprises, Inc. v. SAIF, 118 Or. App. 54, 57-58, 845 P.2d 1298, mod 121 Or. App. 643, 856 P.2d 323 (1993), where we held that while a sole proprietor is barred from workers' compensation coverage for acts performed in that capacity, he or she is not barred when functioning as an employee of another business. DIF's refusal to exempt the loggers on that basis was not error.

  4. Port Blakely v. Natl. Council on Comp. Ins

    125 Or. App. 139 (Or. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 1 times

    It first argues that, even if the loggers were sole proprietors under ORS 656.027(7), their status as "non-subject workers" merely exempts them from coverage while they are self-employed. Citing Little Donkey Enterprises, Inc. v. SAIF, 118 Or. App. 54, 845 P.2d 1298, mod 121 Or. App. 643, 856 P.2d 323 (1993), SAIF reasons that any employer who employs sole proprietors must pay premiums on their behalf. SAIF misconstrues Little Donkey.

  5. S-W Floor Cover Shop v. Natl. Council on Comp. Ins

    121 Or. App. 402 (Or. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 8 times

    We held that, if a sole proprietor functions in the capacity of an employee of another, the exemption from workers' compensation coverage is inapplicable with respect to that relationship. Little Donkey Enterprises, Inc. v. SAIF, 118 Or. App. 54, 845 P.2d 1298 (1993). DIF did not err in holding that Allen, Bailes and Landrum were employees of petitioner for the audit period before October 3, 1989.

  6. B. King Construction v. Natl. Council on Comp. Ins

    852 P.2d 927 (Or. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 1 times

    As to the period July 1, 1989 through October 2, 1989, DIF's conclusion that Crawford and Morgan were exempt from ORS chapter 656 because they were sole proprietors is error. Little Donkey Enterprises, Inc. v. SAIF, 118 Or. App. 54, 845 P.2d 1298 (1993). Because DIF made no findings concerning Crawford and Morgan's status as independent contractors during that period, we must remand for that determination.

  7. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. v. Hegerberg

    118 Or. App. 282 (Or. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 1 times

    "(7) Sole proprietors." In Little Donkey Enterprises, Inc. v. SAIF, 118 Or. App. 54, 845 P.2d 1298 (1993), we held that the sole proprietor exemption required proof that the person qualified as an independent contractor. The statute was amended in 1989 to include that requirement.