No. 07-04921 (2008). KATHLEEN A. BROWN, Claimant.

• Court: Oregon

Oregon Worker Compensation 2008. No. 07-04921 (2008). KATHLEEN A. BROWN, Claimant In the Matter of the Compensation of KATHLEEN A. BROWN, ClaimantWCB Case No. 07-04921ORDER ON REVIEWJames C Niedermeyer, Claimant Attorneys Reinisch MacKenzie PC, Defense AttorneysReviewing Panel: Members Weddell, Langer and Herman.The self-insured employer requests review of that portion of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Fisher's order that set aside its denial of claimant's injury claim for heat exhaustion. On review, the issue is compensability. We reverse. FINDINGS OF FACT We adopt the ALJ's "Findings of Fact." CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND OPINION In setting aside the employer's denial, the ALJ determined that the opinion of Dr. Halverson, claimant's treating emergency room physician, was sufficient to establish that the alleged work injury was a material contributing cause of her disability and need for treatment related to heat exhaustion. On review, the employer asserts that Dr. Halverson's opinion is unpersuasive because his opinion was couched in terms of "possibility" rather than probability, and because he further opined that it was not medically probable that claimant sustained a work related injury. Based on the following reasoning, we reverse. The parties dispute whether claimant had "objective findings." SAIF v. Lewis, 335 Or 92, 98 (2002) ("objective findings in support of medical evidence" describes indications of injury or disease "capable of being verified," whether a particular indication of injury or disease is "capable of being verified" is a question for the trier of fact). Dr. Halvorson indicated that, on examination, claimant did not have any "reproducible objective findings" to support a finding that she had suffered any condition related to the alleged claim. (Ex. 65-1). Yet, the determination of whether "objective findings" are present is a legal issue, so a physician's opinion that no objective findings are present is not controlling if medical findings satisfying the statutory definition are nevertheless present. See Pedro Lopez-Rodriguez, 57 Van Natta 1733 (2005); Joseph Martinez, 56 Van Natta 495, 498 (2004). In this particular case, regardless of whether claimant had legally cognizable "objective findings," we nonetheless uphold the denial. We reason as follows. Claimant has the burden of proving that her work injury...