74 Van Natta 134 (2022)
In the Matter of the Compensation of JILL REYNOLDS, Claimant
WCB No. 21-00318
Oregon Worker Compensation
February 8, 2022
Elmer
& Brunot PC Law Offices, Claimant Attorneys
SAIF
Legal, Defense Attorneys
Reviewing Panel: Members Ceja and Curey.
ORDER
ON REVIEW
Claimant
requests review of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
Somers's order that upheld the SAIF Corporation's
denial of her injury claim for a back 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 injury claim was compensable. In reaching that
conclusion, the ALJ found that the opinions of Dr. Cunningham
(an orthopedic surgeon who reviewed claimant's medical
records at SAIF's request) and Dr. Buehler (an orthopedic
surgeon who examined claimant at SAIF's request) were
more persuasive than the contrary opinion of Dr. Soldevilla,
claimant's neurosurgeon. Accordingly, the ALJ upheld
SAIF's denial.
On
review, claimant contends that Dr. Soldevilla's opinion
is more persuasive than those of Drs. Cunningham and Buehler.
Based on the following reasoning, we disagree with
claimant's contention.
To
establish the compensability of her injury claim, claimant
has the burden of proving that the work event was a material
contributing cause of her disability or need for treatment.
See ORS 656.005(7)(a); ORS 656.266(1); Albany
Gen. Hosp. v. Gasperino, 113 Or App 411, 415 (1992).
Because of the disagreement between the physicians regarding
the cause of claimant's disability or need for treatment,
this claim presents a complex medical question that must be
resolved by expert medical opinion. See Barnett v.
SAIF, 122 Or App 279, 28 (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).
...
