54 Van Natta 221 (2002). DORIS J. DUNCAN, Claimant.

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

Oregon Worker Compensation 2002. 54 Van Natta 221 (2002). DORIS J. DUNCAN, Claimant 221In the Matter of the Compensation of DORIS J. DUNCAN, ClaimantWCB Case No. 01-01219, 01-01218ORDER ON REVIEWDaniel M Spencer, Claimant AttorneysJulie Masters, SAIF Legal, Defense Attorneys Johnson Nyburg and Andersen, Defense AttorneysReviewing Panel: Members Phillips Polich, Biehl, and Bock.1Liberty Northwest Insurance Corporation requests review of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Menashe's order that: (1) set aside its denial of claimant's occupational disease claim for a right thumb condition; and (2) upheld the SAIF Corporation's denial of the same condition. On review, the issue is responsibility. We adopt and affirm the ALJ's order with the following supplementation. From January 1976 until her retirement in June 2000, claimant was employed as a cook for a school district. Liberty insured the school district through June 1998. SAIF assumed coverage thereafter. Following her retirement, claimant submitted a claim for her right thumb condition. Applying the last injurious exposure rule (LIER), the ALJ determined that Liberty was responsible for claimant's arthritic joint condition. Liberty does not contend that LIER is not applicable. Rather, it asserts that correctly applying LIER places responsibility for claimant's arthritic condition with SAIF. We disagree. Where a claimant seeks or receives medical treatment for the compensable condition before experiencing time loss due to that condition, it is appropriate to designate a triggering date based on either the seeking or receiving of medical treatment, whichever occurs first. Agricomp Ins. v Tapp, 169 Or App 208, 213 (2000); see Reynolds Metals v. Rogers, 157 Or App 147, 153 (1998) (the date of the first medical treatment is the triggering date that dictates which period of employment is assigned initial responsibility for the treatment.) 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 221 (2002)222The triggering date has been described as "the date claimant first sought treatment for symptoms, even if not correctly diagnosed until later." SAIF v. Kelly, 130 Or App 185, 188 91994). Alternatively, the triggering date has been described as "the date...