In re Compensation of Cruz-Salazar, 050919 ORWC, 18-01511

Docket Nº:WCB 18-01511
Case Date:May 09, 2019
71 Van Natta 525 (2019)
In the Matter of the Compensation of REINA CRUZ-SALAZAR, Claimant
WCB No. 18-01511
Oregon Worker Compensation
May 9, 2019
          Hollander & Lebenbaum et al, Claimant Attorneys           SAIF Legal Salem, Defense Attorneys           Reviewing Panel: Members Curey and Ousey.           ORDER ON REVIEW          Claimant requests review of that portion of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Somers’s order that awarded 8 percent whole person permanent impairment for a left elbow/shoulder condition, whereas an Order on Reconsideration had awarded 27 percent whole person permanent impairment. On review, the issue is permanent disability (whole person permanent impairment).          We adopt and affirm the ALJ’s order with the following supplementation.          In January 2017, claimant compensably injured her left arm after slipping and falling on a wet floor. (Exs. 1, 2). The SAIF Corporation ultimately accepted a left elbow contusion and left shoulder impingement syndrome. (Exs. 9, 20).          In October 2017, Dr. Kane, claimant’s attending physician, indicated that claimant’s accepted conditions were medically stationary without permanent impairment. (Ex. 27).          On November 8, 2017, SAIF issued a Notice of Closure that awarded no permanent impairment. (Ex. 28). Claimant requested reconsideration.          In February 2018, claimant was evaluated by Dr. Ulmer, the medical arbiter. (Ex. 32). Dr. Ulmer recommended further evaluation of claimant’s condition, noting that she had findings such as decreased sensation that were not explained by the medical record. (Ex. 32-5). He opined that it was possible that claimant had a condition that had not yet been diagnosed or explained, and that her function could likely be improved with further evaluation and treatment. (Id.)          In March 2018, the Appellate Review Unit (ARU) requested clarification of Dr. Ulmer’s opinion regarding the percentage of permanent impairment due to the accepted conditions and direct medical sequela. (Ex. 36). Dr. Ulmer indicated that claimant’s significant limitation of the repetitive use of her left arm and shoulder, range of motion loss...

To continue reading