73 Van Natta 133 (2021)
In the Matter of the Compensation of PERRY NEWELL, Claimant
WCB No. 20-01876
Oregon Worker Compensation
February 18, 2021
Alana
C DiCicco Law, Claimant Attorneys
Cannon Cochran Mgmt Svcs Inc, Carrier
Reviewing Panel: Members Curey and Ousey
ORDER
ON REVIEW
The
self-insured employer requests review of that portion of
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Wren’s order that set aside
its denial of claimant’s occupational disease claim for a
bilateral hearing loss condition. On review, the issue is
compensability.
We
adopt and affirm the ALJ’s order with the following
supplementation.
In
setting aside the employer’s denial, the ALJ found the
opinion of Dr. Gupta, an otolaryngologist, more persuasive
than the opinion of Dr. Kim, a neurotologist who performed an
examination at the employer’s request.
On
review, the employer contends that Dr. Gupta’s opinion is
unpersuasive because it relied on an inaccurate history of
claimant’s work activities. For the following reasons, we
disagree.
Claimant
must prove that his employment conditions were the major
contributing cause of his occupational disease. ORS
656.266(1); ORS 656.802(2)(a). It is claimant’s burden to
prove both legal and medical causation by a preponderance of
the evidence. Harris v. Farmer’s Co-op Creamery, 53
Or.App. 618 (1981). Legal causation is established by showing
that claimant engaged in potentially causative work
activities; whether those work activities caused claimant’s
condition is a question of medical causation. Darla
Litten, [55 Van Natta 925], 926 (2003).
Determination
of the major contributing cause is a complex medical question
that must be resolved on the basis of expert medical opinion.
See Jackson County v. Wehren, 186 Or.App. 555, 559
(2003) (citing Uris v. Compensation Department, 247
Or. 420, 426 (1967)); George W. Green, 72 Van Natta
. 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...
