No. 07-07862. STEVEN W. HAGEN, Claimant.

• Court: Oregon

Oregon Worker Compensation 2008. No. 07-07862. STEVEN W. HAGEN, Claimant In the Matter of the Compensation of STEVEN W. HAGEN, ClaimantWCB Case No. 07-07862, 07-03849ORDER ON REVIEWUnrepresented Claimant Wallace Klor and Mann PC, Defense AttorneysReviewing Panel: Members Lowell and Biehl.Claimant, pro se, requests review those portions of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Fulsher's order that upheld the self-insured employer's denials of claimant's new or omitted medical condition claim for left hip condition and L4-5 disc conditions.(fn1) Claimant's physician has submitted a "post-ALJ's order" medical report. We treat this submission as a motion to remand to the ALJ for the taking of additional evidence. See Judy A. Britton, 37 Van Natta 1262 (1985). On review, the issues are remand and compensability.(fn2) We deny the motion to remand and adopt and affirm the ALJ's order with the following supplementation. Our review is limited to the record developed by the ALJ. We may remand to the ALJ if we find that the case has been "improperly, incompletely or otherwise insufficiently developed[.]" ORS 656.295(5). There must be a compelling reason for remand to the ALJ for the taking of additional evidence. SAIF v. Avery, 167 Or App 327, 333 (2000). A compelling reason exists when the new evidence (1) concerns disability; (2) was not obtainable at the time of the hearing; and (3) is reasonably likely to affect the outcome of the case. Id.; Compton v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 301 Or 641, 646 (1986). As previously noted, we have received a "post-ALJ's order" medical report from one of claimant's treating physicians, Dr. Duwelius. We consider this submission only for the purpose of determining whether remand is appropriate. There is no indication that the substance of this report was unavailable at the time of the hearing. In fact, the record already contains a report from Dr. Duwelius. (Ex. 77). Moreover, consideration of the "post-ALJ order" medical report is not likely to affect the outcome of the case. Under such circumstances, we do not find a compelling reason for remand. We turn to the compensability issues. On January 10, 2004, claimant compensably strained his left groin. (Ex. 13). The employer has also accepted claimant's L3-4 disc herniation condition. (Ex. 98). In December 2006, Dr. Wayson opined that claimant's left hip...