70 Van Natta 773 (2018)
In the Matter of the Compensation of HANNA C. SMITH, Claimant
WCB No. 16-05816
Oregon Worker Compensation
July 2, 2018
Alvey
Law Group, Claimant Attorneys
SAIF
Legal Salem, Defense Attorneys
Reviewing Panel: Members Curey and Ousey.
ORDER ON REVIEW
Claimant
requests review of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
Jacobson’s order that upheld the SAIF
Corporation’s denial of claimant’s injury claim
for a left knee condition. On review, the issue is
compensability.
We
adopt and affirm the ALJ’s order with the following
supplementation.[1]
In
upholding SAIF’s denial, the ALJ found that there were
no persuasive medical opinions supporting that the September
2016 work injury was a material contributing cause of the
need for treatment/disability for the left knee condition.
On
review, claimant contends that the opinion of Dr. Carpenter,
claimant’s treating surgeon, persuasively established
the compensability of her left knee injury. For the following
reasons, we disagree with claimant’s contention.
To
establish a compensable injury, claimant must establish that
the September 2016 work event was a material contributing
cause of her disability/ need for treatment. See ORS
656.005(7)(a); ORS 656.266(1); Albany Gen. Hosp. v.
Gasperino, 113 Or.App. 411, 415 (1992).
Because
of the disagreement between medical experts regarding the
cause of the need for treatment/disability of the claimed
left knee 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);
Matthew C. Aufmuth, 62 Van Natta 1823, 1825 (2010).
More weight is given to those medical opinions that are well
reasoned and based on complete information. See Somers v.
SAIF, 77 Or.App. 259, 263 (1986); Linda E.
Patton, 60 Van Natta 579, 582 (2008).
[70 Van
Natta 774] Here, claimant contends that Dr. Carpenter’s
opinion was consistent with the onset of her left knee
condition. We disagree. Specifically...
