In re Compensation of Effenberger-Legg., 111721 ORWC, 20-05495

Docket NºWCB 20-05495, 20-05494, 20-02378
Case DateNovember 17, 2021
CourtOregon
73 Van Natta 904 (2021)
In the Matter of the Compensation of CHERYL R. EFFENBERGER-LEGG. Claimant
WCB Nos. 20-05495, 20-05494, 20-02378
Oregon Worker Compensation
November 17, 2021
          Dodge and Associates, Claimant Attorneys           MacColl Busch Sato PC, Defense Attorneys           Reviewing Panel: Members Woodford and Ceja.          ORDER ON REVIEW          Claimant requests review of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Ogawa's order that upheld the self-insured employer's denial of her new/omitted medical condition claims for right knee patellar tendinitis, torn right medial meniscus, right pes anserinus bursitis, and right knee plica syndrome. 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 determined that the opinion of Dr. Puziss, claimant's attending physician, did not persuasively establish the compensability of the claimed conditions. 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 her new/omitted medical conditions, claimant must prove that the claimed conditions exist and that her 2018 work injury was a material contributing cause of the disability or need for treatment for those conditions. ORS 656.005(7)(a); ORS 656.266(1); Betty J. King, 58 Van Natta 977 (2006); Maureen Y. Graves, 57 Van Natta 2380 (2005).          Because of the conflicting physicians' opinions regarding the compensability of the claimed conditions, the claims present complex medical questions that must be resolved by expert medical opinion. See Barnett v. SAIF, 122 Or App 279, 282 (1993); Mark A. Porter, [73 Van Natta 102], 102 (2021); 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 Van Natta 905 Torn Right Medial Meniscus          Here, claimant relies on the opinion of Dr. Puziss, her attending...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT