- Class of employer (ancillary operation)
- Employer (sole proprietorship)
- Personal coverage (intention)
- Worker (deemed)
The claimant sought entitlement for a right shoulder injury. The Board denied coverage as it determined that the claimant was not a worker or a deemed worker as defined by the WSIA at the time of the accident. The Board concluded that the worker was a sole proprietor without personal coverage at the time of the accident.
The appeal was denied. At the time the claimant applied for coverage, he was a sole proprietor. The claimant would therefore not be considered a worker under section 11 of the WSIA unless he applied for coverage under section 12 of the WSIA. The Board's policy on optional coverage is found in OPM Document No. 12-03-02. As the first argument, the worker submitted that he wished to obtain personal coverage but was not advised that he needed to apply for it. The Panel determined it did not have sufficient reliable information to make a conclusion about this. In addition, it has not been established that the Board has a legal obligation to advise the claimant of his personal coverage options at the time he applied for business coverage. Even if this obligation existed, it would not be appropriate to remedy that situation by determining that an individual should be considered a deemed worker in the event of an accident, as this would require an application. The claimant's second argument was that his personal circumstances allowed him to fall within an exception that exists under OPM Document No. 12-03-02. The claimant argued that because he maintained an employment relationship with another employer at the time of his accident, an exception would apply. Although the wording of the policy is somewhat unclear, the provisions appear to identify individuals whose earnings patterns are multi-sourced and whose circumstances would require the Board to consider and determine what their pre-injury earnings will be for assessment purposes. These provisions do not identify a category of individuals who are not workers, but who are eligible for workers' compensation coverage as workers without making an application for personal coverage. The Panel did not accept this argument.Lastly, at the time of applying for coverage for his business, the claimant indicated the primary business activity that coverage was being requested for was "Freight Forwarding, Air Cargo". It was based on this information that the business was classified by the Board for assessment purposes. The fact that the business may have involved some work for construction companies, or that some crates may have been "constructed", would not result in the business being classified as operating within the construction industry. The Act's provisions regarding mandatory coverage for sole proprietors within the construction industry therefore did not apply to the claimant and his business.