54 Van Natta 111 (2002). SAM STEELE, Claimant.

Case DateJanuary 31, 2002
CourtOregon
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

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT