70 Van Natta 26 (2018)
In the Matter of the Compensation of SILVIA FLORES-DE MORA, Claimant
WCB No. 17-03735
Oregon Worker Compensation
January 14, 2019
M Hooton Attorney At Law, Claimant Attorneys
Legal Salem, Defense Attorneys
Reviewing Panel: Members Curey and Ousey.
ORDER ON REVIEW
requests review of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
Naugle’s order that upheld the SAIF Corporation’s
denial of claimant’s occupational disease claim for
bilateral upper extremity conditions. On review, the issue is
adopt and affirm the ALJ’s order with the following
upholding SAIF’s denial, the ALJ was not persuaded that
claimant’s work activities were the major contributing
cause of the claimed bilateral upper extremity conditions. In
doing so, the ALJ concluded that the opinion of Dr. Bedolla,
claimant’s primary care physician, was unpersuasive.
review, claimant disagrees with the ALJ’s decision to
uphold the employer’s denial. Based on the following
reasoning, we affirm the ALJ’s decision.
establish a compensable occupational disease, claimant must
prove that employment conditions were the major contributing
cause of the disease. ORS 656.266(1); ORS 656.802(2)(a). The
“major contributing cause” is the cause, or
combination of causes, that contributed more than all other
causes combined. Dietz v. Ramuda, 130 Or.App. 397,
401-02 (1994), rev dismissed, 321 Or. 416 (1995).
of the disagreement between medical experts regarding the
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).
Natta 27] Here, we find that Dr. Bedolla’s opinion, the
only one supporting the compensability of claimant’s
disputed bilateral upper extremity...