54 Van Natta 111 (2002). SAM STEELE, Claimant.
Case Date | January 31, 2002 |
Court | Oregon |
Oregon Worker Compensation
2002.
54 Van Natta 111 (2002).
SAM STEELE, Claimant
111In the Matter of the Compensation of SAM
STEELE, ClaimantWCB Case No. 01-00756ORDER ON REVIEW (REMANDING)Michael B Dye, Claimant AttorneysBruce A. Bornholdt, SAIF Legal,
Defense AttorneysReviewing Panel: Members Biehl, Bock, and Haynes. Member
Haynes dissents. Claimant requests review of
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Howell's order that upheld the SAIF
Corporation's denial of his new medical conditions claim for low back
conditions. On review, the issue is compensability. We vacate and remand.
FINDINGS OF FACT We adopt
the ALJ's "Findings of Fact." CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
OPINION Claimant sustained a compensable low back
injury on March 13, 2000, that SAIF accepted as a
lumbosacral strain. On September 12, 2000, claimant requested that SAIF accept
grade 1 spondylolisthesis at L5, spina bifida at S1, narrowing of the L4-5 disc
space posteriorly, degenerative disc at L5-S1, herniated disc at L4-5 and
thoracic muscular spasm. On December 8, 2000, SAIF
wrote claimant's attorney stating that it would not be formally denying the
thoracic muscle spasm because it was a "symptom," not a "condition." (Ex. 30).
SAIF then denied all the asserted conditions on December 11, 2000, with the exception of the L4-5 disc herniation, which
it accepted on December 13, 2000. (Exs. 31, 32). The basis for the denial was
that the claimed conditions were not caused or pathologically worsened by the
compensable injury. Claimant requested a hearing from the denial. At the hearing, claimant argued that the denied conditions
were compensable as part of a "combined condition." SAIF, however, asserted
that it processed the denied conditions as independently compensable and that
it had not processed or denied a "combined condition." (Tr. 2). The ALJ upheld
SAIF's denial, 54 Van Natta 111 (2002)112concluding that the denied conditions were not
compensable and were not "combined conditions." On
review, claimant contends that he established the compensability of a "combined
condition." For the following reasons, we conclude that remand is appropriate.
Claimant's September 12, 2000 request that the
disputed conditions be accepted did not include a request that they be accepted
as part of a "combined condition" under ORS 656.005(7)(a)(B). (Ex. 22).
Claimant merely requested...
To continue reading
Request your trial