73 Van Natta 64 (2021)
In the Matter of the Compensation of BRANDON J. MOYE, SR., Claimant
WCB No. 19-05946
Oregon Worker Compensation
January 27, 2021
Unrepresented Claimant
Sather
Byerly & Holloway LLP, Defense Attorneys
Reviewing Panel: Members Curey and Ousey.
ORDER
ON REVIEW
Claimant,
pro se,1 requests review of Administrative Law
Judge (ALJ) Reichers’s order that upheld the
self-insured employer’s denials of his new/ omitted
medical condition and medical service claims for several
enumerated conditions. Claimant has also submitted additional
evidence not presented at the hearing level. We treat such a
submission as a motion to remand for the taking of additional
evidence. See ORS 656.295(1); Juan H.
Mendez, 60 Van Natta ; Judy Britton, 37 Van
Natta . On review, the issues are remand and compensability.
We
adopt and affirm the ALJ’s order with the following
supplementation.
The ALJ
concluded that claimant’s numerous claimed conditions
were not compensable, either because they were precluded by
the previously approved Disputed Claim Settlement (DCS) or by
a prior ALJ’s final order (dated December 4, 2014) or
because the medical evidence did not establish that any of
the claimed conditions existed or were causally related to
the 2010 work injury. Consequently, the ALJ upheld the
employer’s denials.
On
review, claimant submits two “post-hearing”
documents. The first is a portion of a decision from the
Social Security Administration (SSA) regarding
claimant’s Social Security disability benefits. The
second is a disability statement from Dr. Blanchard
concluding that claimant is unable to sit or stand for more
than two hours and is otherwise limited to a prone position.
[73 Van
Natta 65] Our review is limited to the record developed by
the ALJ. We may remand to the ALJ if we find that the case
has been “improperly, incompletely, or otherwise
insufficiently developed[.]” ORS 656.295(5). There must
be a compelling reason for remand to the ALJ for the taking
of additional evidence. SAIF v. Avery, 167 Or.App...
