55 Van Natta 4307 (2003). KENNETH M. JACKSON, Claimant.

• Court: Oregon

Oregon Workers Compensation 2003. 55 Van Natta 4307 (2003). KENNETH M. JACKSON, Claimant 4307In the Matter of the Compensation ofKENNETH M. JACKSON, ClaimantWCB Case No. 02-07953, 02-06273ORDER ON REVIEWJon C Correll, Claimant Attorneys Julie Masters, SAIF Legal, Defense Attorneys Paul Louis Roess, Defense AttorneysReviewing Panel: Members Biehl and Lowell.Claimant requests review of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Fulsher's order that upheld the denials of the SAIF Corporation and Fred Meyer, Inc. of his injury/occupational disease claims for an L5-S1 disc condition. SAIF moves to strike Fred Meyer's cross-respondent's brief. On review, the issues are motion to strike, compensability and responsibility. We grant the motion to strike1 and adopt and affirm the ALJ's order with the following changes and supplementation. On page 5, we delete the first paragraph. In the last paragraph on page 5, we change the last sentence on page 5 continuing on page 6 to read: "Because Dr. Parvin failed to adequately address the contribution from the preexisting condition, his opinion is not persuasive." We agree with the ALJ's conclusion that the medical evidence is insufficient to establish compensability of claimant's L5-S1 disc condition. For the following reasons, we agree with the ALJ that Dr. Parvin's opinion was not persuasive because he did not have an accurate understanding of claimant's back symptoms after the 1999 injury. Dr. Parvin's initial history was that claimant had never fully recovered from his back pain since the 1999 injury. (Ex. 10). In a concurrence letter from claimant's attorney, Dr. Parvin assumed that, since the 1999 injury, claimant had episodic back pain that included bouts of numbness/tingling/pain in his leg and "that those episodes continued during the more than a year he went without treatment." (Ex. 24-2). Based on those assumptions, Dr. Parvin agreed that 1 SAIF has moved to strike Fred Meyer's "cross-respondent's" brief on the grounds that it is not permitted under OAR 438-011-0020(2). In effect, Fred Meyer is attempting to submit a "cross-reply." Because Fred Meyer did not file a cross-request for review, it is not authorized to file a reply to SAIF's respondent's brief. See, e.g., James E. Baucum, 55 Van Natta 3251 (2003). Accordingly, SAIF's motion to strike is granted. 55 Van Natta 4307 (2003)4308 ...