In re Compensation of Beaudry, 020922 ORWC, 20-04296

Case DateFebruary 09, 2022
In the Matter of the Compensation of ROBIN BEAUDRY, Claimant
WCB Nos. 20-04296, 20-03310, 20-02782
Oregon Worker Compensation
February 9, 2022
         ORDER ON REVIEW           Bottini Bottini & Oswald, Claimant Attorneys           Reinisch Wilson Weier PC, Defense Attorneys          Reviewing Panel: Members Ceja and Curey.          Claimant requests review of those portions of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Pardington’s order that: (1) upheld the self-insured employer’s denial of his new/omitted medical condition claim for a cervical disc injury with upper extremity radiculitis; (2) declined to award additional temporary disability benefits; and (3) declined to award penalties and attorney fees for allegedly unreasonable claim processing. Submitting three “post-ALJ order” documents, claimant seeks remand to the ALJ for consideration of this proposed evidence. The employer cross-requests review of that portion of the ALJ’s order that set aside its denial of claimant’s new/omitted medical condition claim for C6 nerve root impingement. On review, the issues are remand, compensability, temporary disability, penalties, and attorney fees.          We adopt and affirm the ALJ’s order with the following supplementation regarding claimant’s request for remand and compensability of the C6 nerve root impingement condition.          Remand          On review, claimant submitted additional medical records (Proposed Exhibits 150, 151, and 152) and seeks remand to the ALJ. Those records include chart notes from Dr. Brett dated June 8, 2021 and July 27, 2021, as well as an operative report from Dr. Brett dated July 12, 2021. Based on the following reasoning, remand is not warranted.          We may remand a case to the ALJ for further evidence taking, correction, or other necessary action if we find that the case has been “improperly, incompletely, or otherwise insufficiently developed.” ORS 656.295(5). Remand is appropriate upon a showing of good cause or other compelling basis. See Kienow ’s Food Stores v. Lyster, 79 Or App 416 (1986); Olga L. Herring, [73 Van Natta 392], 392 n 2 (2021) (same). To merit remand for consideration of additional evidence, it must clearly be shown that the evidence was not obtainable with due diligence at the time of the hearing and that the evidence is reasonably likely to affect the outcome of the case. Compton v. Weyerhaueser Co., 301 Or 641, 646 (1986). ...

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