71 Van Natta 614 (2019)
In the Matter of the Compensation of PAUL J. LEBOLD, Claimant
WCB Nos. 18-02873, 17-05380, 18-01548, 17-04080
Oregon Worker Compensation
June 12, 2019
Elmer
& Brunot PC Law Offices, Claimant Attorneys
SAIF
Legal Salem, Defense Attorneys
Reviewing Panel: Members Lanning, Curey, and Wold.
ORDER ON REVIEW
Claimant
requests review of those portions of Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) Naugle’s order that: (1) upheld the SAIF
Corporation’s denial of claimant’s new/omitted
medical condition claim for a L2-3/L3-4 disc condition under
a March 14, 2017 injury claim; (2) upheld SAIF’s denial
of claimant’s new/omitted medical condition claim for
the same condition under an August 17, 2016 injury claim; and
(3) upheld SAIF’s denial of claimant’s
occupational disease claim for the same condition.[1] On review,
the issue is compensability.
We
adopt and affirm the ALJ’s order with the following
supplementation regarding the new/omitted medical condition
claims.
In
upholding SAIF’s denials of the new/omitted medical
condition claims under the August 2016 and March 2017 work
injury claims, the ALJ did not find Dr. Gritzka’s
opinion sufficiently persuasive to establish that those
injuries were a material contributing cause of the need for
treatment/disability for the claimed condition. See
ORS 656.005(7)(a); ORS 656.266(1).
On
review, relying on Dr. Gritzka’s opinion, claimant
contends that his L2-3/L3-4 disc herniation is compensable as
a new/omitted medical condition under the August 2016, and
March 2017, work injury claims. For the following reasons, we
disagree.
To
prevail on his new/omitted medical condition claims, claimant
must prove that either the August 2016/March 2017 work injury
was a material contributing cause of his disability or need
for treatment for his claimed condition.[2] ORS 656.005(7)(a); ORS
656.266(1); Betty J. King, 58 Van Natta 977 (2006).
[71 Van
Natta 615] Because of the disagreement between medical
experts regarding the compensability of the claimed
condition, the claims present a complex medical question that
must be resolved by expert medical opinion. Barnett v.
SAIF, 122 Or.App. 279, 282 (1993); Mathew 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).
Dr.
Gritzka explained that claimant’s
hyperextension/twisting mechanism concerning the August 2016
injury was consistent with the claimed L2-3 disc condition.
(Ex. 82A-9). In discussing the compensability of the L2-3
disc condition, he considered claimant to have been
misdiagnosed with a “lumbosacral sprain” after
the August 2016 work injury. (Exs. 82A-9-12, 85-1). However,
irreconcilably, he also concluded that claimant’s disc
condition remained dormant and asymptomatic until the March
2017 work injury. (Ex. 85-1, -2). Without further explanation
regarding the onset of...
