55 Van Natta 4135 (2003). JOHN PINON, Claimant.

CourtOregon
Oregon Workers Compensation 2003. 55 Van Natta 4135 (2003). JOHN PINON, Claimant 4135In the Matter of the Compensation of JOHN PINON, ClaimantWCB Case No. 03-02475, 02-08075ORDER ON REVIEWMustafa T Kasubhai PC, Claimant Attorneys Johnson Nyburg and Andersen, Defense AttorneysReviewing Panel: Members Lowell and Biehl.The insurer requests review of that portion of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Hazelett's order that set aside its denial of claimant's occupational disease claim for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and a left shoulder tendon condition. On review, the issue is compensability. We adopt and affirm the ALJ's order with the following supplementation. Claimant, a butcher, gradually developed discomfort in his left shoulder and numbness and pain in his wrists. Fearing a heart condition, he sought medical attention, but was ultimately diagnosed with left shoulder impingement syndrome and carpal tunnel syndrome, more severe on the left than the right. Finding Dr. Schmitz, claimant's treating physician, to have a better understanding of claimant's work activities and to have reasonably and logically explained the causal connection between those activities and claimant's symptoms, the ALJ set aside the insurer's denial of the diagnosed condition. On review, the insurer argues that the opinion of Drs. Radecki and Schilperoort is more persuasive than that of Dr. Schmidt. For the following reasons, we agree with the ALJ's assessment of the evidence. To establish compensability of his occupational disease claim, claimant must show that his employment conditions were the major contributing cause of his disease. ORS 656.802(2)(a). Because of the gradual onset of symptoms and the multiple potential causes of the disputed conditions, causation is a complex medical question to be resolved by expert opinion. Barnett v. SAIF, 122 Or App 279, 283 (1993); Kim C. Al-Subaie, 54 Van Natta 1335, 1336 (2002). Absent persuasive reasons to do otherwise, we tend to give greater weight to the conclusions of claimant's attending physician. Weiland v. SAIF, 64 Or App 810, 814 (1983); Sharon R. Farley, 54 Van Natta 224, 226 (2002). However, we are free to decide what weight to give to an opinion depending on other factors affecting the persuasiveness of that opinion. Dillon v. Whirlpool Corp., 172 Or 55 Van Natta 4135 (2003)4136 App...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT