54 Van Natta 285 (2002). JOHN M. BOWHAN, Claimant.

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

Oregon Worker Compensation 2002. 54 Van Natta 285 (2002). JOHN M. BOWHAN, Claimant 285In the Matter of the Compensation of JOHN M. BOWHAN, ClaimantWCB Case No. 00-09544, 00-06836, 00-06189ORDER ON REVIEWRobert J Guarrasi, Claimant AttorneysMannix Et Al, Defense Attorneys William J Blitz, Defense Attorneys Scheminske Et Al, Defense AttorneysReviewing Panel: Members Biehl and Lowell.The SAIF Corporation, on behalf of Safari Motor Coaches, Inc. (SAIF/Safari), requests review of those portions of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Marshall's order that: (1) set aside its denial of claimant's aggravation claim for his current bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome condition; (2) upheld denials of claimant's occupational disease claims for the same condition issued by SAIF on behalf of Monaco Coach Corporation (SAIF/Monaco) and Bushelers Chainsaw (SAIF/Bushelers); (3) awarded additional temporary partial disability; (4) assessed SAIF/Safari a penalty for allegedly unreasonable claim processing; and (5) awarded a $6,000 insurer paid attorney fee under ORS 656.307(5). Submitting a report from its safety coordinator and an investigation report (documents that were not presented at the hearing), SAIF/Safari requests remand to the ALJ for further development of the record. On review, the issues are remand, responsibility, temporary disability, penalties, and attorney fees. We deny the motion to remand and adopt and affirm the ALJ's order with the following supplementation. Remand We may not consider evidence that is not in the record. ORS 656.295(5). Neither will we consider arguments based upon evidence not in the record. We may remand to the ALJ for the taking of additional evidence if we determine that the record has been "improperly, incompletely or otherwise insufficiently developed." ORS 656.295(5). To merit remand, however, it must be shown that the evidence was not obtainable with due diligence at the time of hearing. Compton v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 301 Or 641 (1986). We conclude that SAIF/Safari has made no showing of due diligence. 54 Van Natta 285 (2002)286The documents in question include a November 9, 2000 report from the employer's safety coordinator and a May 27, 1999 investigation report from SAIF/Safari's investigator. SAIF/Safari asserts that "[f]or unknown reasons," those documents were not introduced at the May 10, 2001...