72 Van Natta 558 (2020)
In the Matter of the Compensation of DAVID S. MCNEW, Claimant
WCB No. 18-04266
Oregon Worker Compensation
June 24, 2020
Guinn
Law Team, Claimant Attorneys
TriMet
General Counsel, Defense Attorneys
Reviewing Panel: Members Lanning and Curey.
ORDER
ON REVIEW
Claimant
requests review of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
Pardington’s order that upheld the self-insured
employer’s denial of his occupational disease claim for
back, right groin, right hip, and right leg conditions. On
review, the issue is compensability.
We
adopt and affirm the ALJ’s order with the following
supplementation.
In
upholding the employer’s denial, the ALJ found that,
although the ultimate opinion of Dr. Puziss, claimant’s
attending physician, “might” have carried
claimant’s burden of proof, the contrary opinions of
Drs. Broock and Jones, who examined claimant at the
employer’s request (and who Drs. Heeney and Crist
concurred with) were most persuasive.
On
review, claimant contests the ALJ’s evaluation of the
medical evidence. For the following reasons, we affirm the
ALJ’s order.
To
establish a compensable occupational disease, claimant must
prove that employment conditions were the major contributing
cause of the disease. ORS 656.266(1); ORS 656.802(2)(a). The
“major contributing cause” is the cause, or
combination of causes, that contributed more than all other
causes combined. Dietz v. Ramuda, 130 Or.App. 397,
401-02 (1994), rev dismissed, 321 Or. 416 (1995).
Because
the record contains conflicting opinions regarding the cause
of claimant’s conditions, the issue of causation is a
complex medical question that must be resolved by expert
medical opinion. Barnett v. SAIF, 122 Or.App. 279,
282 (1993); Alvin D. Rohrscheib, 72 Van Natta 421,
422 (2020). 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).
[72 Van
Natta...
