55 Van Natta 2495 (2003). RONALD J. REYNOLDS, Claimant.

• Case Date: July 31, 2003
• Court: Oregon

Oregon Workers Compensation 2003. 55 Van Natta 2495 (2003). RONALD J. REYNOLDS, Claimant 2495In the Matter of the Compensation of RONALD J. REYNOLDS, ClaimantWCB Case No. 02-02656, 01-08671ORDER ON REVIEWMustafa T Kasubhai PC, Claimant Attorneys James B Northrop, SAIF Legal, Defense Attorneys Hoffman Hart and Wagner, Defense AttorneysReviewing Panel: Members Biehl and Langer.AIG Claims Services Inc. (AIG), requests review of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Peterson's order that: (1) admitted Exhibit 21 into evidence; (2) set aside its denial of compensability of and responsibility for claimant's occupational disease claim for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome; (3) upheld the SAIF Corporation's denial of responsibility for the same condition; and (4) awarded a $5,000 attorney fee. On review, the issues are evidence, compensability, responsibility and attorney fees. We adopt and affirm the ALJ's order with the following supplementation. AIG contends for the first time that Exhibit 21, a rebuttal report from Dr. Schmitz, was not secured in a timely fashion. On this basis, it argues that the exhibit is not admissible. For the following reasons, we affirm the ALJ's evidentiary ruling. ORS 656.283(7) provides that the ALJ is not bound by common law or statutory rules of evidence and may conduct a hearing in any manner that will achieve substantial justice. That statute gives an ALJ broad discretion on determinations concerning the admissibility of evidence. See, e.g., Brown v. SAIF,51 Or App 389, 394 (1981). We, therefore, review the ALJ's evidentiary ruling for abuse of discretion. Rose M. LeMasters, 46 Van Natta 1533 (1994), aff'd mem133 Or App 258 (1995). Here, the ALJ did not set any time limitation within which the rebuttal report had to be submitted. In addition, AIG did not object to the ALJ's admission of Exhibit 21 in its written closing arguments to the ALJ. Under such circumstances, we do not find that the ALJ abused his discretion in admitting Exhibit 21. With regard to compensability, AIG contends that claimant had preexisting problems with numbness and tingling as early as 1991. On this basis, AIG 55 Van Natta 2495 (2003)2496contends that ORS 656.802(2)(b) applies and that claimant has the burden to prove that employment conditions at its insured were the major contributing cause of a combined condition and...