In re The Compensation of Page, 040919 ORWC, 16-04633

Docket Nº:WCB 16-04633, 16-02847, 16-00318
Case Date:April 09, 2019
Court:Oregon
 
FREE EXCERPT
71 Van Natta 377 (2019)
In the Matter of the Compensation of SANDRA Y. PAGE, Claimant
WCB Nos. 16-04633, 16-02847, 16-00318
Oregon Worker Compensation
April 9, 2019
          Julene M Quinn LLC, Claimant Attorneys           Reinisch Wilson Weier, Defense Attorneys           Reviewing Panel: Members Curey and Lanning.           ORDER ON REVIEW          Claimant requests review of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jacobson’s order that: (1) upheld the self-insured employer’s denial of claimant’s new/omitted medical condition claim for reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD), lumbar strain, right ankle sprain, right sural nerve irritation/scarring, and right sacroiliac joint dysfunction; (2) upheld the employer’s denial of claimant’s new/omitted medical condition claim for right Morton’s neuroma, sinus tarsi syndrome, and sural nerve irritation; and (3) upheld the employer’s denial of claimant’s new/omitted medical condition claim for right greater trochanter bursitis and traumatic arthritis of the lateral interior tibiotalar ankle joint. On review, the issue is compensability.          We adopt and affirm the ALJ’s order with the following supplementation to address claimant’s lumbar strain, right sural nerve irritation/sural nerve irritation/ right sural nerve scarring, and right sacroiliac joint dysfunction conditions.[1]          Finding the opinion of claimant’s attending physician, Dr. Jones, most persuasive, the ALJ concluded that claimant had not established compensability of the aforementioned new/omitted medical conditions.          On review, claimant contests the ALJ’s evaluation of the medical evidence and conclusions regarding compensability. For the following reasons, we agree with the ALJ’s determination that the claimed new/omitted lumbar strain, right sural nerve irritation/sural nerve irritation/right sural nerve scarring, and right sacroiliac joint dysfunction conditions are not compensable.[2]          [71 Van Natta 378] To prevail on her new/omitted medical condition claims, claimant must prove that the claimed conditions exist, and that the April 29, 2014, work injury was a material contributing cause of her disability/need for treatment for the claimed 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, 2381 (2005). Because of the disagreement between medical experts regarding the existence and compensability of the claimed conditions, the claim 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, 77 Or.App. 259, 263 (1986); Linda E. Patton, 60 Van Natta 579, 582 (2008). In addition, we properly may or may not give greater weight to the opinion of...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP