In re Comp. of Rude, WCB Case No. 18-03281
| Decision Date | 02 July 2019 |
| Docket Number | WCB Case No. 18-03281 |
| Citation | 71 Van Natta 697 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Compensation of JIM M. RUDE, Claimant |
| Court | Oregon Workers' Compensation Division |
ORDER ON REVIEW
Jodie Phillips Polich, Claimant Attorneys
Reviewing Panel: Members Lanning and Woodford.
Claimant requests review of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Naugle's order that upheld the SAIF Corporation's denial of claimant's new/omitted medical condition claims for a thoracic spine strain/sprain, an anterior costochondritis, a posterior costovertebral joint sprain, and a T7-8 centralized disc protrusion. On review, the issue is compensability.
We adopt and affirm the ALJ's order with the following supplementation.
In upholding SAIF's denial of the claimed conditions, the ALJ found the opinion of Dr. Ordonez, a neurosurgeon who examined claimant at his request, unpersuasive. In doing so, the ALJ reasoned that Dr. Ordonez's opinion was based on an inaccurate history concerning the mechanism of injury, and that he had only examined claimant on one occasion 19 months post injury. Moreover, the ALJ found the opinion of Dr. Walters, claimant's attending physician and occupational medicine specialist, to be most persuasive. Specifically, the ALJ reasoned that his ability to examine claimant on the day of the incident, as well as his five subsequent examinations, provided him with a superior understanding of claimant's complaints and examination findings.
On review, claimant challenges the ALJ's evaluation of the medical evidence. Specifically, he asserts that the opinions of Dr. Walters and Dr. Bell, a neurologist who examined claimant at SAIF's request, are unpersuasive. Moreover, he contends that Dr. Ordonez provided a well-reasoned opinion based on complete and accurate information, and is entitled to deference as a neurosurgeon. For the following reasons, we affirm the ALJ's order.
To establish the compensability of his claimed new/omitted medical conditions, claimant must prove that the claimed conditions exist, and that the work injury was a material contributing cause of the disability or need for treatment of his 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 (2005).
Because of the disagreement between medical experts regarding the compensability of the claimed conditions, resolution of this matter is a complex medical question that must be resolved by expert medical opinion. 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).
Dr. Ordonez based his opinion that claimant's work injury caused his claimed conditions on a history that he developed ongoing thoracic pain symptoms from the January 2017 work incident. (Ex. 66-14). Yet, the contemporaneous medical records do not establish such a history. Rather, the record reflects that, while claimant initially reported some upper thoracic pain as noted by Dr. Walters, he no longer reported it 10 days post injury. (Exs. 21-1, 24-1, 41-1). Moreover, the records reflect that he reported an onset of left flank/rib pain in mid-May 2017 and was found to have kidney stones, which were removed, but that he continued to have ongoing pain. (Exs. 33-1, 41-1). Such information was a significant factor for Drs. Walters and Bell to conclude that claimant's conditions were not related to the January 2017 work injury.1 (Exs. 38, 41, 45-18, -19, 48-2, 50-5, 52).
Although Dr. Ordonez reviewed Dr. Bell's report that noted her concern regarding the delayed onset of claimant's symptoms, and Dr. Walter's notation that claimant's thoracic complaints had resolved, he did not respond to that history. Instead, he stated that there was no delay in the development of claimant's thoracic symptoms and that they had not completely resolved. (Ex. 66-2, -3, -4, -14). Moreover, to the extent that claimant's testimony differed at the September 2018 hearing, he has not demonstrated that his more recent memory is more reliable than the contemporaneous records. Under such circumstances, without further explanation concerning the delay in the onset of claimant's symptoms, we discount Dr. Ordonez's opinion. See Moe v. Ceiling Sys., 40 Or App 429, 433 (1980) (); Miller v. Granite Constr. Co., 28 Or App 473 (1977) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial