No. 06-03248 (2008). WALTON F. YOUNG, Claimant.

• Court: Oregon

Oregon Worker Compensation 2008. No. 06-03248 (2008). WALTON F. YOUNG, Claimant In the Matter of the Compensation of WALTON F. YOUNG, ClaimantWCB Case No. 06-03248ORDER ON REVIEWRansom Gilbertson et al, Claimant Attorneys VavRosky MacColl Olson et al, Defense AttorneysReviewing Panel: Members Lowell and Biehl.The self-insured employer requests review of that portion of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Mills' order that set aside its denial of claimant's occupational disease claim for left shoulder AC joint arthritis. On review, the issue is compensability. We adopt and affirm the ALJ's order with the following supplementation. In 1985, claimant began working for the employer in its road department. For about a year, he shoveled and raked cinder and asphalt. For approximately the next four years, he worked on a rock crusher machine, which involved climbing on the machine, performing maintenance, and shoveling rock. Since that time, he worked on a road grader and did other maintenance work. On January 19, 2006, claimant had an accident in which some clothing was caught in a wood chipper, pulling his left arm back and down. He experienced left shoulder pain at that time. Claimant filed an injury claim for his left shoulder. After an MRI revealed severe degenerative AC joint arthritis in claimant's left shoulder, the employer denied the injury claim. Claimant then filed an occupational disease claim for his left shoulder condition, which the employer also denied. Claimant requested a hearing. Meanwhile, Dr. Hutson, claimant's attending physician, performed left shoulder surgery to address degenerative arthritis of the AC joint with impingement syndrome. Reasoning that the evidence supporting compensability attributed claimant's AC joint arthritis to his overall employment activities rather than solely to the January 19, 2006 work incident, the ALJ analyzed claimant's left shoulder condition as an occupational disease. Finding Dr. Hutson's opinion most persuasive, the ALJ set aside the employer's occupational disease denial. On review, the employer contends that Dr. Hutson's opinion is unpersuasive because it was based on an incomplete and inaccurate history. The employer argues that the opinions of Dr. Weeks, an employer-arranged medical records reviewer, and Dr. Grossenbacher, an employer-arranged medical examiner, are more persuasive. After reviewing the record, we agree with the ALJ's conclusion that Dr. Hutson provided the most...