Judicial review from the Workers' Compensation Board. 81 Or. App. 258, 724 P.2d 914 (1986). Ronald L. Bohy, of Rolf Olson, P.C., Salem, argued the cause and filed the petition for petitioner on review.
1A Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law 5-271, ยง 24.40 (1993). We have previously expressed approval of Larson's view. SAIF v. Reel, 81 Or. App. 258, 260, 724 P.2d 914 (1986), aff'd on other grounds 303 Or. 210, 735 P.2d 364 (1987). Employer argues that the record establishes no real obligation to live on the premises, only that claimant was permitted to do so.
The referee concluded that claimant was not a "traveling employee." But see SAIF v. Reel, 81 Or. App. 258, 260, 724 P.2d 914 (1986), aff'd 303 Or. 210, 735 P.2d 364 (1987). The Board said that it did "not necessarily agree" with that, but it did not analyze the issue any further. It concluded that an argument between co-workers who are staying at a motel for the employer's convenience is work-related and that claimant's injuries are therefore compensable under the factors identified in Mellis v. McEwen, Hanna, Gisvold, 74 Or. App. 571, 574, 703 P.2d 255, rev den 300 Or. 249 (1985).