54 Van Natta 272 (2002). JAMES STOCKWELL, Claimant.

• Case Date: May 07, 2002
• Court: Oregon

Oregon Worker Compensation 2002. 54 Van Natta 272 (2002). JAMES STOCKWELL, Claimant 272In the Matter of the Compensation of JAMES STOCKWELL, ClaimantOwn Motion No. 02-0062MOWN MOTION ORDER REVIEWING CARRIER CLOSURERansom Et Al, Claimant AttorneysReviewing Panel: Members Phillips Polich and Lowell.Claimant requests review of the insurer's January 18, 2002 Notice of Closure, which closed his claim with an award of temporary disability compensation from November 15, 2001 through December 28, 2001.1 The insurer declared claimant medically stationary as of December 28, 2001. A claim may not be closed unless 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 was medically stationary at the time of the January 18, 2002 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, 12 (1980). Here, in a December 28, 2001 chart note, Dr. Buehler...