In re Compensation of Hamilton, 011322 ORWC, 20-00035

Docket NºWCB 20-00035
Case DateJanuary 13, 2022
CourtOregon
74 Van Natta 45 (2022)
In the Matter of the Compensation of JERRY S. HAMILTON, Claimant
WCB No. 20-00035
Oregon Worker Compensation
January 13, 2022
          Guinn Law Team, Claimant Attorneys           SAIF Legal Salem, Defense Attorneys.           Reviewing Panel: Members Ceja and Woodford.          ORDER ON REVIEW          Claimant requests review of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Pardington's order that upheld the SAIF Corporation's denial of his occupational disease claim for a bilateral hand/wrist condition. On review, the issue is compensability.          We adopt and affirm the ALJ's order with the following supplementation.          The ALJ found that the record did not persuasively establish that claimant's bilateral hand/wrist condition was compensable. Accordingly, the ALJ upheld SAIF's denial.          On review, claimant contends that the record persuasively establishes the compensability of his occupational disease claim. Based on the following reasoning, we disagree with claimant's contention.          To establish a compensable occupational disease, claimant must prove that employment conditions were the major contributing cause of the disease. See ORS 656.266(1); ORS 656.802(2)(a). Employment conditions were the "major contributing cause" if they contributed to the disease more than all other causes combined. See Bow en v. Fred Meyer Stores, 202 Or.App. 558, 563-64 (2005); Dietz v. Ramuda, 130 Or.App. 397, 401-402 (1994).          Because of the conflicting physicians' opinions regarding the cause of claimant's condition, this case 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, 11Or.App. 259, 263 (1986); Linda E. Patton, [60 Van Natta 579], 582 (2008).          Here, claimant relies on the opinion of Dr. Puziss, an orthopedist who examined claimant at his request. Dr. Puziss...

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