73 VanNatta 74 (2021)
In the Matter of the Compensation of SHAWN C. WALKER, Claimant
WCB Nos. 20-01475, 20-00447, 20-00225, 20-00224, 19-06665, 19-01148
Oregon Worker Compensation
January 29, 2021
Guinn
Law Team, Claimant Attorneys
MacColl Busch Sato PC, Defense Attorneys
Reviewing Panel: Members Ousey and Woodford.
ORDER ON REVIEW
Claimant
requests review of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
Pardington's order that upheld the self-insured
employer's denial of his new/omitted medical condition
claim for a left acetabular tear. 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 was not
persuaded that claimant's November 2018 work injury was a
material contributing cause of the disability/need for
treatment of the claimed left acetabular tear condition. The
ALJ found the opinion of Dr. Puziss unpersuasive, reasoning
that he had a materially inaccurate history.
On
review, claimant challenges the ALJ's evaluation of the
medical evidence. For the following reasons, we affirm the
ALJ's order.
To
prevail on his new/omitted medical condition claim, claimant
must prove that the claimed condition exists and that the
work injury was a material contributing cause of the
disability/need for treatment of that
condition.1 See ORS 656.005(7)(a); ORS
656.266(1); Betty J. King, 58 VanNatta 977, 977
(2006); Maureen Y. Graves, 57 VanNatta 2380, 2381
(2005).
Because
of the conflicting physicians' opinions, this claim
presents a complex medical question that must be resolved by
expert medical opinion. See Barnett v. SAIF, 122
Or.App. 279, 282 (1993); Matthew 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 Or.App. 259, 263
(1986); Linda E. Patton, 60 Van Natta 579, 582
(2008).
[73
VanNatta 75] Here, claimant contends that Dr. Puziss's
opinion...
