55 Van Natta 4226 (2003). LINDA L. SWIGART, Claimant.

• Court: Oregon

Oregon Workers Compensation 2003. 55 Van Natta 4226 (2003). LINDA L. SWIGART, Claimant 4226In the Matter of the Compensation of LINDA L. SWIGART, ClaimantWCB Case No. 02-06614ORDER ON REVIEWClaimant Unrepresented Bruce A Bornholdt, SAIF Legal, Defense AttorneysReviewing Panel: Members Biehl and Lowell.Claimant, pro se, requests review of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Mills' order that upheld the SAIF Corporation's denials of her low back injury claim. On review, the issues are timeliness of claim filing and (potentially) compensability. We adopt and affirm the ALJ's order with the following supplementation. The ALJ upheld SAIF's denials, finding that claimant's back injury claim was not filed in a timely fashion. In light of this finding, the ALJ did not address the merits of the claim. On review, claimant argues that her claim was timely filed. Specifically, she contends that she timely reported her injury to an assistant supervisor (Banton) and her supervisor (Anderson), but was not supplied with a form 801. Claimant's contention notwithstanding, we, nevertheless, agree with the ALJ's reasoning on the timeliness issue. Moreover, even if we determined that this claim was not time-barred, we would still not find it compensable. Because of claimant's preexisting degenerative back condition and the possible alternative causes of her low back condition, resolution of this matter is a complex medical question that must be resolved by expert medical opinion. Uris v. Compensation Dept., 247 Or 420 (1967); Barnett v. SAIF, 122 Or App 279 (1993). When there is a dispute between medical experts, more weight is given to those medical opinions that are well-reasoned and based on complete and...