55 Van Natta 4161 (2003). DOLORES R. BROMLEY, Claimant.

• Court: Oregon

Oregon Workers Compensation 2003. 55 Van Natta 4161 (2003). DOLORES R. BROMLEY, Claimant 4161In the Matter of the Compensation ofDOLORES R. BROMLEY, ClaimantWCB Case No. 03-00923ORDER ON REVIEWRansom Gilbertson et al, Claimant Attorneys Hoffman Hart and Wagner, Defense AttorneysReviewing Panel: Members Biehl and Langer.The self-insured employer requests review of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Davis' order that: (1) set aside its denial of claimant's C5-6 and C6-7 disc pathology; and (2) awarded a $4,400 employer-paid attorney fee. On review, the issues are compensability and attorney fees. We adopt and affirm the ALJ's order with the following supplementation. In setting aside the employer's denial, the ALJ determined that claimant's industrial injury combined with his preexisting C5-6 and C6-7 disc pathology. The ALJ further opined that the major contributing cause of claimant's disability and need for treatment for the combined condition was the industrial injury. On review, the employer argues that claimant's work activities did not cause claimant's radiculopathy at C5-6 and C6-7. The employer also argues that the radiculopathy is a "symptom" and alleges that the ALJ erred in finding the "symptom" constituted a compensable combined condition. Finally, the employer contends that even if the compensability determination is not reversed, the ALJ's attorney fee award was excessive and should be reduced. First, the medical evidence does not establish that the claimed C5-6 and C6-7 radiculopathy is a symptom as opposed to a condition. To the contrary, Dr. Greenleaf defined "radiculopathy" as "stimulation or irritation or an injury to the nerve root causing pain down different branches of a specific nerve." (Ex. 37-21). Dr. Greenleaf's opinion does not establish that the claimed radiculopathy is a symptom. In the absence of persuasive medical evidence supporting the employer's argument, we reject its contention that claimant's radiculopathy constitutes a "symptom." See SAIF v. Calder, 157 Or App 224, 227-28 (1998) (the Board is not an agency with specialized medical expertise entitled to take official notice of technical facts within its specialized knowledge). 55 Van Natta 4161 (2003) 4162 This claim has been accepted for a mid and low back strain and a cervical strain. (Ex. 4). The matter before us pertains to the...