54 Van Natta 57 (2002). SHANNON T. HOLDREN, Claimant.

• Case Date: January 16, 2002
• Court: Oregon

Oregon Worker Compensation 2002. 54 Van Natta 57 (2002). SHANNON T. HOLDREN, Claimant 57In the Matter of the Compensation of SHANNON T. HOLDREN, ClaimantWCB Case No. 01-02230ORDER ON REVIEWCary Et Al, Claimant AttorneysAlice M. Bartelt, SAIF Legal, Defense AttorneysReviewing Panel: Members Haynes, Bock, and Phillips Polich. MemberPhillips Polich dissents. Claimant requests review of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Johnson's order that affirmed an Order on Reconsideration finding that his claim for multiple injuries was not prematurely closed. On review, the issue is premature closure. We adopt and affirm the ALJ's order with the following changes and supplementation. We agree with the ALJ that the claim was not prematurely closed. See former OAR 436-030-0020(17)(a) (WCD Admin Order No. 97-065). On page 3, we replace the first full sentence with the following: "SAIF requested reconsideration. (Ex. 28)." In the first full paragraph on page 3, we change the date in the first sentence to "March 20, 1999." In the first paragraph on page 4, we change the last sentence to read: "Dr. Lin concurred with both reports. (Ex. 39)." On page 4, we replace the third paragraph with the following: "In December 2000, Dr. Lin responded to questions from claimant's attorney regarding the redetermination of claimant's permanent disability. (Ex. 42). Dr. Lin indicated that he did not have an opportunity to reassess the level of disability since completion of the training plan. (Ex. 42-1). He did not agree, however, that he had "merely assume[d] that [claimant's] impairment was unchanged[.]" (Id.) Dr. Lin commented: "The evaluation by Dr. Vessely in April 1999 addressing orthopedic injuries seemed consistent with [claimant's] medical status relating back to my last appt. 12/14/98. So did Dr. Gabr's eval[uation] on cognition." (Ex. 42-2). 54 Van Natta 57 (2002)58ORDER The ALJ's order dated July 19, 2001 is affirmed. Entered at Salem, Oregon on January 16, 2002Board Member Phillips Polich dissenting. The majority affirms the ALJ's order that found claimant's claim was not prematurely closed. Because the majority and the ALJ mischaracterized the issue and reached the wrong conclusion, I respectfully dissent. This case involves two claim closures. The claim was initially closed in 1998. (Exs. 27, 33). In April 1999, claimant began an...