54 Van Natta 203 (2002). STEVEN COREY, Claimant.

• Case Date: April 19, 2002
• Court: Oregon

Oregon Worker Compensation 2002. 54 Van Natta 203 (2002). STEVEN COREY, Claimant 203In the Matter of the Compensation of STEVEN COREY, ClaimantOwn Motion No. 02-0001MOWN MOTION ORDER REVIEWING CARRIER CLOSUREClaimant UnrepresentedReviewing Panel: Members Biehl, Bock, and Phillips Polich.1Claimant requests review of the insurer's December 17, 2001 Notice of Closure which closed his claim with an award of temporary disability compensation from April 12, 2001 through November 25, 2001. The insurer declared claimant medically stationary as of November 25, 2001. In his request for review of the insurer's closure, claimant states that, because his physician has ordered him to seek light duty work, he is entitled to "training assistance." We interpret such statements as a contention that claimant's condition was either not medically stationary at claim closure or that he is entitled to vocational rehabilitation benefits. A claim may not be closed unless the claimant's condition is medically stationary. See OAR 438-012-0055(1). "Medically stationary" means that no further material improvement would reasonably be expected from medical treatment or the passage of time. ORS 656.005(17). Claimant bears the burden of proving that he was not medically stationary at claim closure. Berliner v.Weyerhaeuser Corp., 54 Or App 624 (1981). The propriety of the closure turns on whether claimant's condition was medically stationary at the time of the December 17, 2001 Notice of Closure, considering claimant's condition at the time of closure and not of subsequent developments. See ORS 656.268(1); Sullivan v. Argonaut Ins. Co., 73 Or App 694 (1985); Alvarez v. GAB Business Services, 72 Or App 524 (1985). The issue of claimant's medically stationary status is primarily a medical question to be decided based on competent medical evidence. Harmon v. SAIF, 54 Or App 121, 125 (1981); Austin v. SAIF, 48 Or App 7...