In re Compensation of Miralrio-Guevara, 100219 ORWC, 18-03148

Case DateOctober 02, 2019
CourtOregon
71 Van Natta 1111 (2019)
In the Matter of the Compensation of MARCOS E. MIRALRIO-GUEVARA, Claimant
WCB No. 18-03148, 17-03820
Oregon Worker Compensation
October 2, 2019
          The Dalton Law Firm, Claimant Attorneys           Sather Byerly & Hollo way, Defense Attorneys           Reviewing Panel: Members Woodford and Ousey.           ORDER ON REVIEW (REMANDING)          Claimant requests review of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Wren's order that upheld the self-insured employer's denial of his injury claim for a left leg condition. Claimant also submits "post-hearing" documents, which we interpret as a motion for remand to the ALJ for further development of the record. See ORS 656.295(5); Judy A. Britton, 37 Van Natta 1262 (1985). On review, the issues are remand and, potentially, compensability. We vacate the ALJ's order and remand.          The hearing was held and the record closed on February 7, 2019. In upholding the employer's denial, the ALJ found the opinions of Drs. Marines and Smark to be persuasive. They opined that whatever injury occurred on October 2, 2016, when claimant was hit by a cart at work, had resolved without disability/need for treatment, and when he eventually sought medical treatment in January 2017, he did not present with findings of an acute left leg injury.          On review, claimant submits additional evidence pertaining to his claimed left leg condition. The proffered evidence consists of a "post-hearing" April 22, 2019, chart note from Dr. Ulmer, an orthopedist, a "post-hearing" May 20, 2019, left knee CT scan report, and a "post-hearing" May 23, 2019, chart note from Dr. Ulmer regarding a review of the CT scan report. (See Proposed Exs. 22, 23, 24). Based on the CT scan report, which identified a meniscal tear, and Dr. Ulmer's chart notes, which related that tear to the October 2016 injury, claimant contends that remand is warranted because the proffered evidence concerns disability, was not obtainable with due diligence before the hearing, and is likely to affect the outcome of the case.          Our review is limited to the record developed by the ALJ. We may remand...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT