70 Van Natta 196 (2018)
In the Matter of the Compensation of MICHAEL P. YOHN, Claimant
WCB No. 16-04264
Oregon Worker Compensation
February 12, 2018
Bottini Bottini & Oswald, Claimant Attorneys
Reinisch Wilson Weier, Defense Attorneys
Reviewing Panel: Members Johnson and Lanning.
ORDER ON REVIEW
Claimant
requests review of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
Otto’s order that upheld the self-insured
employer’s denial of his occupational disease/injury
claim for a cervical condition. On review, the issue is
compensability.
We
adopt and affirm the ALJ’s order with the following
supplementation.
The ALJ
analyzed the claim both as an “occupational
disease” and as a “combined condition,” and
found that the claim was not compensable under either theory.
On
review, claimant contends that the claim should be analyzed
as a combined condition, and that the claimed May 20, 2016
injury was the major contributing cause of his
disability/need for treatment for his combined cervical
condition. The employer responds that the ALJ properly
analyzed the claim as an occupational disease, but even
assuming an injury theory, the ALJ’s order should be
affirmed. For the following reasons, we adopt the ALJ’s
analysis, with the following supplementation regarding the
“combined condition” theory.
Under
an “injury” theory, claimant must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that the claimed condition
exists and that the May 20, 2016 work injury was a material
contributing cause of his disability/need for treatment. ORS
656.005(7)(a); ORS 656.266(1); Maureen Y. Graves, 57
Van Natta 2380, 2381 (2005) (an injured worker has the burden
to prove both existence and compensability of a claim for a
new/omitted medical condition). When an “otherwise
compensable injury” combines with a statutory
“preexisting condition,” the employer has the
burden of establishing that the “otherwise compensable
injury” is not the major contributing cause of
claimant’s disability/need for treatment of the
combined condition. ORS 656.005(7)(a)(B); ORS 656.266(2)(a);
SAIF v. Kollias, 233 Or.App. 499, 505 (2010);
Jack G Scoggins, 56 Van Natta 2534, 2535 (2004).
Under Brown v. SAIF, 361 Or. 241, 272 (2017),
“the ‘injury’ component of the phrase
‘otherwise compensable injury’ in ORS
656.005(7)(a)(B) refers to a medical condition, not an
accident.”
[70 Van
Natta 197] Because of the disagreement between medical
experts regarding the existence and compensability of the
claimed condition, the claim presents a complex medical
question that must be resolved by expert medical opinion.
Barnett v. SAIF, 122 Or.App. 279, 282 (1993). More
weight is given to those medical opinions that are
well-reasoned and based on complete information. Somers
v. SAIF, 77 Or.App. 259, 263 (1986). A medical history
is complete if it contains sufficient information upon which
to base an opinion and does not exclude information that
would make the opinion less credible. Jackson County v.
Wehren, 186 Or.App. 555, 561 (2003).
Here,
even assuming that Dr. Brett’s opinion establishes that
the May 20, 2016 injury was a material contributing cause of
claimant’s disability/need for treatment for a cervical
condition, we find that the employer has carried its burden
to prove...
