In re Compensation of Berg, 102919 ORWC, 18-02775

Case DateOctober 29, 2019
CourtOregon
71 Van Natta 1239 (2019)
In the Matter of the Compensation of DANIELLE N. BERG, Claimant
WCB No. 18-02775
Oregon Worker Compensation
October 29, 2019
          Adams Hill & Hess, Claimant Attorneys           Law Offices Of Kathryn R Morton, Defense Attorneys           Reviewing Panel: Members Woodford and Lanning.          ORDER ON REVIEW          The insurer requests review of that portion of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Wren's order that set aside its denial of a new/omitted medical condition claim for a chronic regional pain syndrome (CRPS) condition. Claimant cross-requests review of those portions of the ALJ's order that: (1) excluded two concurrence reports submitted by claimant; and (2) awarded an $8, 000 attorney fee. On review, the issues are evidence, compensability, and attorney fees. We affirm in part and modify in part.          FINDINGS OF FACT          We adopt the ALJ's “Findings of Fact.”          CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND OPINION          Evidence          Claimant contends that the ALJ's evidentiary ruling to exclude proposed Exhibits 80 and 81 (September 2018 concurrence reports authored by Drs. Hinz and Nelson) was an abuse of discretion. We disagree with claimant's contention.          An ALJ may conduct a hearing in any manner that will achieve substantial justice, and has broad discretion regarding the admissibility of evidence. ORS 656.283(6); Brown v. SAIF, 51 Or.App. 389, 394 (1981). We review an ALJ's evidentiary ruling for abuse of discretion. SAIF v. Kurcin, 334 Or 399, 406 (2002). If the record is held open for a limited purpose, it is within the ALJ's discretion to exclude evidence that does not comport with that purpose. Debra A. Meyer, [64 Van Natta 2243], 2044 (2012); Clifford L. Conradi, [46 Van Natta 854], 857 (1994). However, it is an abuse of discretion to exclude evidence that falls within the scope of the express purpose for which the record is held open. Jamie M. Holly, [63 Van Natta 1670], 1672 (2011).          [71 Van Natta 1240] Here, the hearing had been scheduled for August 30, 2018. During an August 14, 2018, conference call with the ALJ, the parties agreed to submit the matter on the documentary record. On August 15, 2018, the ALJ authored a confirming letter stating that claimant anticipated offering “an additional...

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