73 Van Natta 102 (2021)
In the Matter of the Compensation of MARK A. PORTER, Claimant
WCB No. 19-04883
Oregon Worker Compensation
February 10, 2021
Miller
Law, Claimant Attorneys
SAIF Legal Salem, Defense Attorneys
Reviewing Panel: Members Curey and Ousey.
ORDER
ON REVIEW
Claimant
requests review of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Sencer’s
order that upheld the SAIF Corporation’s denial of his
new/omitted medical condition claim for a cervical
radiculopathy condition. On review, the issue is
compensability.
We
adopt and affirm the ALJ’s order with the following
supplementation.
In
upholding SAIF’s denial, the ALJ found the opinions of Drs.
Singh and Takacs to be more persuasive than that of Ms. Ward,
a physician assistant with whom claimant began treatment in
July 2019. The ALJ found Ms. Ward’s opinion unpersuasive
because it relied primarily on the temporal relationship of
claimant’s symptoms to his work injury. Additionally, the ALJ
reasoned that Ms. Ward attributed claimant’s presumed
cervical radiculopathy to a disc herniation when there was no
diagnosis of a disc herniation in the prior medical records.
On
review, claimant challenges the ALJ’s evaluation of the
medical evidence. For the following reasons, we affirm the
ALJ’s order.
To
establish the compensability of his claimed new/omitted
medical condition, claimant must prove that the claimed
condition exists and that the work injury was a material
contributing cause of the disability or need for treatment of
his condition. ORS 656.005(7)(a); ORS 656.266(1); Betty
J. King, 58 Van Natta ; Maureen Y. Graves, 57
Van Natta 2380 (2005).
Because
of the disagreement between medical experts regarding the
compensability of the claimed condition, the claim presents a
complex medical question that must be resolved by expert
medical opinion. Barnett v. SAIF, 122 Or.App. 279,
282 (1993); Mathew C. Aufmuth, [62 Van Natta 1823],
1825 (2010). More weight is given to those medical opinions
that are well reasoned and based on complete information.
See Somers v. SAIF, 77...
