71 Van Natta 522 (2019)
In the Matter of the Compensation of JUDITH L. CROCE, Claimant
WCB Nos. 17-05501, 17-01670
Oregon Worker Compensation
May 9, 2019
Moore
& Jensen, Claimant Attorneys
SAIF
Legal Salem, Defense Attorneys
Reviewing Panel: Members Lanning and Woodford.
ORDER ON REVIEW
The
SAIF Corporation requests review of Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) Bloom’s order that set aside its denial of
claimant’s new/omitted medical condition claim for a
left knee anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear. On review,
the issue is compensability.
We
adopt and affirm the ALJ’s order with the following
supplementation.
In
setting aside SAIF’s denial, the ALJ found that Dr.
Walton’s opinion persuasively established
compensability of the claimed condition.
On
review, SAIF contends that Dr. Walton’s opinion is not
persuasive because it is not entitled to deference based on
his attending physician status, it is inadequately explained,
and it does not address contrary medical opinions. We
disagree for the following reasons.
Even if
we did not afford Dr. Walton’s opinion greater weight
as the treating physician/surgeon, we would still find his
opinion to be persuasive. In doing so, we find Dr.
Walton’s opinion to be well reasoned, adequately
explained, and based on complete information. In addition to
his firsthand observations of claimant, Dr. Walton based his
opinion on her patient history, her previous chart notes, and
a review of her diagnostic imaging studies (x-rays and an
MRI). (Ex. 56-15). Dr. Walton explained that an ACL tear is a
result of force that is applied to the knee, and commonly
results from a twisting action when the foot is planted and
the body turns over it. (Ex. 56-20, -21). That explanation is
consistent with claimant’s description of the injury
event, wherein she turned to hand an item to someone and her
knee turned but her foot did not, and she felt a pain and
heard a noise. (Tr. 16). Furthermore, Dr. Walton explained
that age-related degenerative changes are not a primary cause
of ACL tears, a...
