55 Van Natta 4171 (2003). CRAIG D. BARKLOW, Claimant.

• Court: Oregon

Oregon Workers Compensation 2003. 55 Van Natta 4171 (2003). CRAIG D. BARKLOW, Claimant 4171In the Matter of the Compensation of CRAIG D. BARKLOW, Claimant Own Motion No. 03-0426MINTERIM OWN MOTION ORDER POSTPONING ACTION ON REVIEW OFCARRIER CLOSURE Heather Holt, Claimant Attorneys SAIF Legal, Defense AttorneysReviewing Panel: Members Kasubhai and Lowell.Claimant requests review of the SAIF Corporation's August 13, 2003 Notice of Closure that: (1) declared claimant's condition medically stationary as of July 2, 2033; (2) awarded temporary disability benefits; and (3) awarded no permanent disability for his "post-aggravation rights" new/omitted medical condition ("C4-5 disc herniation"). Claimant requests the appointment of a medical arbiter to evaluate his permanent impairment. FINDINGS OF FACT On May 25, 1993, claimant sustained a compensable cervical injury, which SAIF accepted as a disabling injury claim. Claimant's aggravation rights have expired. Subsequently, SAIF voluntarily reopened claimant's claim for the "post-aggravation rights" new medical condition ("C4-5 disc herniation") by filing a 3501 form. ORS 656.278(1)(b) (2001); ORS 656.278(5) (2001); OAR 438-012-0030. On August 13, 2003, SAIF closed the claim with an Own Motion Notice of Closure that awarded no permanent disability benefits for the "post-aggravation rights" new/omitted medical condition. Claimant has requested review of SAIF's August 2003 Notice of Closure. Claimant asserts entitlement to permanent disability for "post-aggravation rights" new medical condition and seeks the appointment of a medical arbiter. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND OPINION Claimant requests review of SAIF's closure of his claim based on his disagreement with the impairment findings used to rate his disability. In addition, claimant requests appointment of a medical arbiter. SAIF opposes the appointment of a medical arbiter, contending that "sufficient information exists for the Board to 55 Van Natta 4171 (2003)4172 review the closure." Based on the following reasoning, we grant claimant's request. The sufficiency of the record is only a factor in determining whether the appointment of a medical arbiter is warranted when a claimant has not requested an arbiter. See Richard Wiland, 55 Van Natta 3910 (2003). However, when, as here, a claimant objects to the impairment findings used to...