55 Van Natta 4178 (2003). MARSHALL J. JOHNSON, Claimant.

• Court: Oregon

Oregon Workers Compensation 2003. 55 Van Natta 4178 (2003). MARSHALL J. JOHNSON, Claimant 4178In the Matter of the Compensation of MARSHALL J. JOHNSON, ClaimantWCB Case No. 02-07692ORDER ON REVIEWScott M McNutt Sr, Claimant Attorneys Alice M Bartelt, SAIF Legal, Defense AttorneysReviewing Panel: Members Biehl and Lowell.The SAIF Corporation requests review of that portion of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Crumme's order that set aside its partial denial of claimant's "tooth #11 and malocclusion"1 conditions. On review, the issue is compensability. We affirm. FINDINGS OF FACT We adopt the ALJ's "Findings of Fact," except for the last two sentences. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND OPINION Claimant was 42 years old at the time of hearing. He had a fractured jaw when he was in high school, around 1975. On May 15, 1989, a tree limb struck claimant's jaw at work. He sustained a second jaw fracture and several broken teeth, including his tooth number 11 (his left "eye tooth"). On May 16, 1989, Dr. Smith, oral surgeon, operated on claimant's fractured jaw, and restored it to its "pre-1989 injury" state, as much as possible. On June 1, 1989, SAIF accepted claimant's "broken jaw-left." In August 1989, Dr. Gronemeyer, dentist, began restoring claimant's teeth, with crowns and bridges. Part of this restoration involved a root canal, post, and crown for tooth 11. 1 Occlusion is defined (in part) as: "The relationship between the occlusal surfaces of the maxillary and mandibular teeth when they are in contact." Stedman's Electronic Medical Dictionary, v. 4.0 (1998). As relevant here, occlusion means "bite pattern." (See Ex. 18-35). A good bite pattern is one where the upper and lower teeth touch. 55 Van Natta 4178 (2003) 4179 On August 20, 1991, the parties' Claim Disposition Agreement (CDA) was approved. Claimant fully released his past, present, and future "non-medical services" benefits. In June 2001, claimant's crown on tooth number 11 fell off and he returned to Dr. Gronemeyer, who noted that the tooth and cast post for the crown were broken. In order to maintain the original (1989) treatment, Dr. Gronemeyer replaced the cast post and crown on tooth 11. (Ex. 10). On September 20, 2002, claimant formally requested that SAIF amend its acceptance to include his "tooth number eleven (11) and restoration of a centric bite."2 (Ex. 13). SAIF denied the...