56 Van Natta 93 (2004). CHARLES M. SPIVEY, Claimant.

• Case Date: January 16, 2004
• Court: Oregon

Oregon Workers Compensation 2004. 56 Van Natta 93 (2004). CHARLES M. SPIVEY, Claimant 93In the Matter of the Compensation of CHARLES M. SPIVEY, ClaimantWCB Case No. 02-00807, 01-08426, 01-08423, 01-08422, 01-08421, 01-07891,01-07890, 01-07889, 01-07888, 01-07887ORDER ON REVIEW Black Chapman et al, Claimant Attorneys Reinisch Mackenzie et al, Defense Attorneys Johnson Nyburg and Andersen, Defense Attorneys Gene L Platt, Defense Attorneys James B Northrop, SAIF Legal, Defense Attorneys Bailey Pinney and Assocs, Defense AttorneysReviewing Panel: Members Biehl, Lowell, and Bock.Claimant requests review of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Brazeau's order that upheld denials of claimant's occupational disease claim for bilateral hearing loss condition issued by Crawford and Company on behalf of Southwest Forest Products and Stone Container, the SAIF Corporation on behalf of Medford Plywood, Liberty Northwest Insurance Corporation on behalf of May Trucking Company, Market Transport, and Modoc Orchards (Liberty/Modoc), RSKCO on behalf of KRI Constructors (RSKO/KRI), and SAMIS on behalf of Naumes, Inc. (Samis/Naumes). Claimant argues that the ALJ erred in addressing compensability, because the only parties who denied compensability settled those claims before the ALJ issued his order. On review, the issues are scope of the ALJ's review and responsibility.1 We reverse in part and affirm in part. FINDINGS OF FACT We adopt the ALJ's "Findings of Fact," with the following supplementation. On March 19, 2003, the ALJ approved a Disputed Claim Settlement Agreement between claimant and Royal and SunAlliance (Royal) on behalf of Iron 1 Claimant requests remand for findings of fact and arguments regarding responsibility. We deny these requests, because we find that the record is properly, completely, and sufficiently developed to decide the responsibility issue. See ORS 656.295(5). During closing arguments, RSKCO/KRI argued that claimant failed to prove that he was a "subject worker under this insurer's coverage." We do not address this argument because it was first raised during closing arguments. See Charlene P. Brumaghim, 53 Van Natta 822 (2001) (Board will not consider an issue raised for the first time during closing argument). 56 Van Natta 93 (2004)94Gate and Quality Crafts, Inc. Also that day, the ALJ approved a Disputed Claim Settlement Agreement between claimant and Royal on behalf of Fibreboard Carton. As of the date these agreements were approved, all issues arising from these carriers' compensability denials were resolved.2 The ALJ's order addressing compensability of claimant's bilateral hearing loss claim issued March 21, 2003. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND OPINION Claimant worked for a plywood mill from 1951 to 1957. Then he worked for Fibreboard Container until the fall of 1975. After that he worked for a year at Southwest Forest Products, followed by about four years at Iron Gate. Claimant then worked for Medford Plywood from 1982 through 1983. In 1984, he worked for six months for Quality Craft, then three months for KRI. Claimant worked in California...