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...