55 Van Natta 4214 (2003). TERRY D. STEWART, Claimant.

• Court: Oregon

Oregon Workers Compensation 2003. 55 Van Natta 4214 (2003). TERRY D. STEWART, Claimant 4214In the Matter of the Compensation of TERRY D. STEWART, ClaimantWCB Case No. 02-06606ORDER ON RECONSIDERATIONRex Q Smith, Claimant Attorneys James B Northrop, SAIF Legal, Defense AttorneysReviewing Panel: Members Biehl and Langer.Claimant requests reconsideration of our November 25, 2003 order that affirmed an Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ's) order that: (1) refused to admit a "post-hearing/post-continuance" file review letter from Dr. Kimberley; and (2) upheld the SAIF Corporation's denial of claimant's groin injury claim. In addition, claimant continues to argue that we should consider Dr. Kimberley's letter, Proposed Exhibit 22, on review. SAIF responds that the ALJ properly refused to admit Dr. Kimberly's letter, because it exceeded the limited purpose for which the ALJ granted claimant's request for a continuance. Claimant replies that the doctor's letter should have been admitted because it is the "kind of evidence routinely admitted in workers' compensation cases" and he exercised due diligence in obtaining it--because nobody reasonably foresaw that claimant's treating doctors would fail to "cooperate" with his requests for causation opinions. Having received the parties' arguments, we proceed with our reconsideration. Essentially, claimant argues (as he did on review) that he exercised due diligence in obtaining Dr. Kimberley's April 17, 2003 letter, which was generated and submitted almost five months after the hearing. Specifically, claimant contends that it was reasonable for him to expect claimant's physicians to generate opinions supporting his claim because he asked them to do that. Thus, when claimant's physicians refused to support his claim before and after the hearing, claimant argues that his delay in obtaining evidence supporting the claim was justified by his reasonable expectation that they would support it. We disagree. First, the ALJ had discretion to limit the purpose for which the record remained open when she granted claimant's request for a continuance. See Michael A. Sell, 55 Van Natta 767 (2003). Here, the ALJ kept the record open only to allow claimant an opportunity to seek and obtain medical evidence from 55 Van Natta 4214 (2003)4215 his treating physicians. (See Tr. 40-48; 77, 80). Accordingly, because...