73 Van Natta 206 (2021)
In the Matter of the Compensation of ELVIA E. MANDUJANO, Claimant
WCB Nos. 19-00520
Oregon Worker Compensation
March 10, 2021
Julene
M Quinn LLC, Claimant Attorneys.
Gress
Clark Young & Schoepper, Defense Attorneys.
Reviewing Panel: Members Ousey and Woodford.
ORDER
ON REVIEW
Claimant
requests review of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
Fleischman’s order that upheld the self-insured
employer’s denial of her new/omitted medical condition
claims for pelvic floor, incontinence, and dyspareunia
conditions. On review, the issue is compensability.
We
adopt and affirm the ALJ’s order with the following
supplementation.
Claimant,
a teacher, was injured at work on February 18, 2018, when a
cover from an overhead light fell and struck her on the head.
(Ex. 3). The employer accepted her claim for a concussion and
cervical strain. (Ex. 14).
Before
the work injury, claimant had a history of chiropractic
treatment for low back, mid-back, and neck symptoms. (Ex.
Dc). Claimant had also received a diagnosis of
hypothyroidism, and evaluation and treatment for ulcerative
colitis. (Exs. 20a-1, 20b-1).
On
September 20, 2018, claimant was evaluated by an obstetrics
and gynecology specialist, Dr. Goldsworthy, concerning the
onset of urinary incontinence. (Ex. 27). Dr. Goldsworthy
found that claimant’s left pelvic floor was 'very
tight and tender,” and she considered claimant’s
pelvic floor tension to be related to the work injury. (Ex.
27-4). Claimant initiated new/omitted medical condition
claims for “incontinence” and “dyspareunia
or high tone pelvic floor dysfunction,” which the
employer denied. (Exs. 29, 39, 48).
The ALJ
determined that claimant did not establish the compensability
of the claimed high tone pelvic floor dysfunction,
incontinence, and dyspareunia conditions under either
“direct injury” or “consequential
condition” standards. The ALJ reasoned that the
opinions of Dr. Goldsworthy and Ms. Schurtz, a physical
therapist specializing in pelvic floor rehabilitation, did
not persuasively support claimant’s “material
contributing cause” burden of proof.
On
review, claimant contends that Dr. Goldsworthy’s
opinion persuasively establishes that the February 23, 2018,
work injury was both a material and the major contributing
cause of the claimed pelvic floor conditions. However, based
[73 Van Natta 207] on the following reasoning, we agree with
the ALJ’s conclusion that the record does not
persuasively establish that the February...
