57 Van Natta 1356 (2005). KRISTIN K. DUNLOP, Claimant.

• Case Date: May 24, 2005
• Court: Oregon

Oregon Workers Compensation 2005. 57 Van Natta 1356 (2005). KRISTIN K. DUNLOP, Claimant 1356In the Matter of the Compensation of KRISTIN K. DUNLOP, ClaimantWCB Case No. 03-03295ORDER ON REVIEWUnrepresented Claimant James B Northrop, SAIF Legal Salem, Defense AttorneysReviewing Panel: Members Langer and Kasubhai.Claimant, pro se,1 requests review of those portions of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Somers' order that: (1) upheld the SAIF Corporation's partial denial of claimant's left shoulder adhesive capsulitis condition; (2) found that claimant's left shoulder rotator cuff impingement condition was reasonably encompassed within her previously accepted left shoulder strain condition; and (3) upheld SAIF's denial of claimant's aggravation claim for cervical, thoracic, lumbar, and left shoulder strain conditions. On review, the issues are claim processing, compensability, and aggravation.2 We affirm.3 FINDINGS OF FACT We adopt the ALJ's "Findings of Fact" with the following correction and supplementation. 1 Because claimant is no longer represented, she may wish to consult the Workers' Compensation Ombudsman, whose job it is to assist injured workers in such matters. She may contact the Workers' Compensation Ombudsman, free of charge, at 1-800-927-1271, or write to: WORKERS' COMPENSATION OMBUDSMAN DEPT OF CONSUMER and BUSINESS SERVICES PO BOX 14480 SALEM, OR 97309-0405 2 Claimant also raises the issues of temporary total disability (TTD) benefits and alleged discovery violations. These issues were not raised at hearing. We generally do not address new issues raised for the first time on review. See Stevenson v. Blue Cross, 108 Or App 247, 252 (1991); Arlene C. Chambers, 54 Van Natta 2473 (2002). At any rate, we note that if claimant is seeking TTD benefits based on her left shoulder rotator cuff impingement, which SAIF clarified was encompassed within her accepted conditions, her entitlement to such benefits is a claim processing issue that flows from that clarification; it is not an issue currently before us. 3 SAIF objects to references to matters that were not included in the record developed at hearing. In considering the parties' arguments, we have limited our review of the record to the testimonial and documentary evidence admitted at the hearing. ORS 656.295(5). 57 Van Natta 1356 (2005)1357On March 30, 2002, Dr. Okamoto, claimant's chiropractor, requested authorization for six months of palliative care. On September 21, 2002, claimant worked at a facility where she saw twelve patients for their physical therapy requirements, five of whom weighed more than 200 pounds. Dr. Radzik noted that claimant was unable to raise her left arm on November 20, 2002, but noted improved range of motion in her left shoulder on December 4, 2002 and "almost full" range of motion in her left...