54 Van Natta 171 (2002). ANNE L. ERNST, Claimant.

• Case Date: April 12, 2002
• Court: Oregon

Oregon Worker Compensation 2002. 54 Van Natta 171 (2002). ANNE L. ERNST, Claimant 171In the Matter of the Compensation of ANNE L. ERNST, ClaimantWCB Case No. 01-02036ORDER ON REVIEWHollander and Lebenbaum, Claimant AttorneysSather Byerly and Holloway, Defense AttorneysReviewing Panel: Members Biehl, Bock, and Phillips Polich.1The self-insured employer requests review of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Poland's order that set aside its denial of claimant's occupational disease claim for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). On review, the issue is compensability. We adopt and affirm the ALJ's order with the following supplementation. Claimant was required to establish that her work activities were the major contributing cause of her CTS condition. See ORS 656.802(2)(a); Jessica R.Porter, 53 Van Natta 672 (2001). The ALJ concluded that compensability was demonstrated through the testimony of claimant and by the persuasive opinion of claimant's treating physician, Dr. Yoshinaga. The employer contends that Dr. Yoshinaga's opinion should be discounted because he failed to explain why obesity was not a factor in the causation of claimant's condition or how claimant's work activities were specifically related to the onset of CTS. Further, the employer asserts that the "major contributing cause" standard was not satisfied because, in its view, the treating physician's medical opinions were contradictory and incomplete. Because of the possible alternative causes for claimant's CTS condition, this matter involves a complex medical question that must be resolved by expert medical opinion. See Uris v. Compensation Department, 247 Or 420 (1967). Such medical opinion need not be expressed to a degree of medical certainty, only medical probability. See Robinson v. SAIF, 147 Or App 157, 160 (1997); Gormley v. SAIF, 52 Or App 1055, 1060 (1981). When, as here, there is a dispute between medical experts, more weight is given to those medical opinions that are well reasoned and based on complete information. See Somers v. SAIF, 77 Or App 259, 263 (1986). 1 After consultation with the Department of Justice, this Board has chosed to exercise its right to issue orders as a panel of three pursuant to ORS 656.718(2) and (3). 54 Van Natta 171 (2002)172Dr. Yoshinaga's opinion that claimant's condition resulted from her work activities...