54 Van Natta 7 (2002). ALLAN J. ZAREK, Claimant.

• Case Date: January 10, 2002
• Court: Oregon

Oregon Worker Compensation 2002. 54 Van Natta 7 (2002). ALLAN J. ZAREK, Claimant 7In the Matter of the Compensation of ALLAN J. ZAREK, ClaimantWCB Case No. 00-02035, 99-01929ORDER ON REVIEWMartin L Alvey, Claimant AttorneysSAIF Legal, James B Northrop, Defense Attorneys Reinisch Mackenzie Healey Et Al, Defense AttorneysReviewing Panel: Members Biehl and Haynes.AIG Claim Services, Inc., on behalf of Bechtel Construction Company (AIG/Bechtel), requests review of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Mills' order that: (1) set aside its denial of claimant's occupational disease claim for a binaural hearing loss condition; and (2) upheld the SAIF Corporation's denial, on behalf of Morgan Industrial, Inc. (SAIF/Morgan), for the same condition. On review, the issues are compensability and responsibility. We affirm in part and reverse in part. FINDINGS OF FACT We adopt the ALJ's findings of fact with the following exception, supplementation, and summary. We do not adopt the second sentence of the fifth paragraph of the ALJ's findings of fact. Claimant, age 53 at the time of the hearing, has worked as a millwright since 1971. He received his assignments from the union and has worked for numerous employers over the years. His work as a millwright involved installing heavy machinery such as power generators, turbines, and sawmill equipment. He has regularly been exposed to loud noise during the course of his employment. He did not regularly wear hearing protection during most of this employment. He did not have significant off work exposure to noise. From April 1995 to May 1996, claimant worked as a millwright for Bechtel installing steam and gas turbines at a power plant. These turbines were very noisy, making a jet engine-like noise. Claimant was also exposed to noise from power equipment being used in the construction process. Claimant wore some hearing protection at Bechtel, although not consistently. In June and July of 1996, claimant worked as a millwright for Morgan Industrial. He was involved in two jobs, working a total of about 14 days. These 54 Van Natta 7 (2002)8were installation-type jobs and claimant was exposed to noise in adjacent areas. He wore foam type earplug hearing protection, although not consistently. In August 1996, claimant began his current job as a labor union business representative representing millwrights in Oregon and Southwest Washington. (Tr. 7, 10). This current employer (the Union) is not a party to this case because claimant did not think that his work at the Union had anything to do with his hearing loss. (Tr. 20). Claimant has limited noise exposure in his current job. Claimant's job duties with the Union deal mainly with contract management, acting as the middle person between workers and employers, and ensuring compliance with the master labor agreements. (Tr. 7-8). Most of his time is spent in his office and on the road, during which time he has no noise exposure. (Tr. 8-9). However, he also visits job sites a small percentage of the time, consisting of about an hour a day on a job site, with maybe 15 minutes of that time in the field. (Tr. 14). Claimant always follows the check-in procedures when visiting a job site and always wears hearing protection...