71 Van Natta 1114 (2019)
In the Matter of the Compensation of ETHAN N. KAEO, Claimant
WCB No. 18-03196
Oregon Worker Compensation
October 2, 2019
Dale C
Johnson, Claimant Attorneys
Reinisch Wilson Weier, Defense Attorneys
Reviewing Panel: Members Lanning and Curey.
ORDER ON REVIEW
Claimant
requests review of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Martha
Brown's order that upheld the self-insured employer's
denial of his injury claim for a right knee condition. On
review, the issue is compensability.
We
adopt and affirm the ALJ's order with the following
supplementation.[1]
The ALJ
found that the opinions of claimant's treating
physicians, Drs. Nguyen and Tedesco, were based on an
inaccurate history of the mechanism of injury and were,
therefore, unpersuasive. The ALJ also discounted these
physician's opinions for not discussing the potential
contribution of an earlier right knee injury. Instead, the
ALJ relied on the opinion of Dr. Broock, who ultimately
concluded that claimant's specific description of the
injury as standing and "turning" at work did not
represent a plausible mechanism of injury to cause
claimant's disability/need for treatment for an ACL tear.
On
review, claimant contends that Drs. Broock and Groman did not
consider the correct mechanism of injury, and that the
opinions of the treating physicians, Drs. Nguyen and Tedesco
are more persuasive. Based on the following reasoning, in
addition to that expressed in the ALJ's order, we
disagree and find that claimant has not established that the
work incident was a material contributing cause of the
disability/need for treatment for a right knee condition.
[71 Van
Natta 1115] Claimant must prove that his May 2018 work injury
was a material contributing cause of his disability/need for
treatment for the claimed right knee condition. ORS
656.005(7)(a); ORS 656.266(1); Mario Carrillo, 70
Van Natta 1815, 1818 (2018). Because of the disagreement
between medical experts regarding claimant's injury, the
claim presents a complex medical question that must be...
