72 Van Natta 697 (2020)
In the Matter of the Compensation of ANDREW L. PARSONS, Claimant
WCB No. 19-04849
Oregon Worker Compensation
July 28, 2020
Gilbertson Martin et al, Claimant Attorneys
Legal Salem, Defense Attorneys
Reviewing Panel: Members Curey and Ousey.
requests review of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
Somers’s order that affirmed an Order on
Reconsideration that awarded 5 percent whole person permanent
impairment and 20 percent work disability for right shoulder
conditions. On review, the issue is permanent disability
(permanent impairment and work disability).
adopt and affirm the ALJ’s order with the following
reconsideration, where a medical arbiter is used, impairment
is established by the medical arbiter, except where a
preponderance of the medical evidence demonstrates that
different findings concurred with by the attending physician
at the time of claim closure are more accurate and should be
used. OAR 436-035-0007(5); SAIF v. Owens, 247
Or.App. 402, 411-415 (2011), recons, 248 Or.App. 746
(2012); Douglas E. Rivas, 71 Van Natta 1029, 1029
(2019). Absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we are
not free to disregard the medical arbiter’s findings.
See Hicks v. SAIF, 194 Or.App. 655, recons,
196 Or.App. 146, 152 (2004); Khrul v. Foremans
Cleaners, 194 Or.App. 135, 130 (2004); Rivas,
71 Van Natta at 1029-30. Impairment findings are ratable
unless the physician determines the findings are invalid.
See OAR 436-035-0007(11); Robin R.
Jorgensen, [72 Van Natta 179], 181 n 3 (2020).
Dr. Van Tilburg performed an arbiter examination. (Ex. 34).
Dr. Van Tilburg found that claimant’s impairment
deficits were invalid, likely due to “symptom
magnification, malingering, deconditioning, significant
increase in body mass index, and other factors.” (Ex.
the arbiter’s examination, Dr. Gramstad, the attending