54 Van Natta 218 (2002). LESLIE E. LINDLEY, Claimant.

• Case Date: April 24, 2002
• Court: Oregon

Oregon Worker Compensation 2002. 54 Van Natta 218 (2002). LESLIE E. LINDLEY, Claimant 218In the Matter of the Compensation of LESLIE E. LINDLEY, ClaimantWCB Case No. 00-08970ORDER ON REVIEWGlen J Lasken, Claimant AttorneysJohnson Nyburg and Andersen, Defense AttorneysReviewing Panel: Members Biehl, Phillips Polich, and Bock.1 Chair Bock chose not to sign the order. Claimant requests review of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Stephen Brown's order that upheld the insurer's denial of claimant's occupational disease claim for a bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) condition. On review, the issue is compensability. We reverse. FINDINGS OF FACT Claimant has worked at the insured bank for 33 years. For the last 6 years, she entered data and typed "pretty steady," 6 hours a day. (Tr. 19-20). Claimant began experiencing pain and numbness in her hands at work in the fall of 1997. At first, her symptoms subsided on weekends. However, by the time claimant sought treatment in October 1999, her symptoms were more severe and constant --on and off work. Claimant did not know that her CTS was work-related until Dr. Buckholz asked her questions about her work and told her that the condition was work related. (Tr. 8-11). Thereafter, claimant filed a claim, which the insurer denied. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND OPINION The ALJ found the medical opinions supporting claimant's CTS claim unpersuasive and therefore upheld the insurer's denial. Specifically, the ALJ noted claimant's September 29, 2000 history to Dr. Peterson that typing did not make her CTS symptoms worse and her symptoms did not abate on weekends. The ALJ contrasted this history with claimant's testimony that her early symptoms began at work and did abate on weekends, but they were later severe on and off work. The 1 After consultation with the Department of Justice, this Board has chosen to exercise its right to issue orders as a panel of three pursuant to ORS 656.718(2) and (3). 54 Van Natta 218 (2002)219ALJ reasoned that claimant's recounting of symptoms was "incompatible" with her early failure to recognize the possible work-relatedness of her CTS. Therefore, the ALJ concluded that the opinions supporting the claim relied on an inaccurate temporal relationship between claimant's initial symptoms and her work activities.2 We reach the opposite result. At the outset, we note...