MATTER OF EDWARDS, 58 Van Natta 487 (Or. Work. Comp. 2/13/2006), WCB Case No. 05-01394.
| Decision Date | 13 February 2006 |
| Docket Number | WCB Case No. 05-01394. |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Compensation of KENNETH L. EDWARDS, Claimant. |
| Court | Oregon Workers' Compensation Division |
Claimant requests review of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Lipton's order that upheld the self-insured employer's denial of his injury claim for an acute nosebleed condition. On review, the issue is compensability.
We adopt and affirm the ALJ's order with the following supplementation.
The ALJ upheld the employer's denial of claimant's nosebleed condition, reasoning that claimant had not established that his work injury was a material contributing cause of his disability or need for treatment. In so doing, the ALJ found Dr. Valera's opinion supporting compensability unpersuasive. On review, claimant argues that Dr. Valera's opinion persuasively establishes compensability of his condition. We disagree.
In order to establish a compensable injury, claimant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his work injury was at least a material contributing cause of his disability or need for medical treatment. See ORS 656.005(7)(a); Tricia A. Somers, 55 Van Natta 462, 462 (2003). Claimant must establish his compensable condition by medical evidence supported by objective findings. See ORS 656.005(7)(a); ORS 656.005(19).
The causation issue in this case is a complex medical question that must be resolved with expert medical opinion. Uris v. Comp. Dep't, 247 Or 420 (1967); Barnett v. SAIF, 122 Or App 279, 283 (1993). When there is a dispute between medical experts, we rely on those medical opinions that are well reasoned and based on complete information. Somers v. SAIF, 77 Or App 259, 263 (1986). Absent persuasive reasons to the contrary, we generally give greater weight to the opinion of claimant's attending physician. Weiland v. SAIF, 63 Or App 810 (1983); Darwin B. Lederer, 53 Van Natta 974 n2 (2001). However, we properly may or may not give greater weight to the opinion of the treating physician, depending on the record in each case. Dillon v. Whirlpool Corp., 172 Or App 484, 489 (2001).
In addition to the reasons given by the ALJ, we find Dr. Valera's opinion unpersuasive because it is inconsistent. In one opinion, Dr. Valera stated "I don't believe the presence of the nubbin/blood vessel or the thinning of the mucose was caused by straining or weight lifting although these may have been precipitating events for the bleeding episodes." (Ex. 13). In another opinion, Dr. Valera opined that claimant's on-the-job weightlifting was a material contributing cause of each of his two nosebleeds. (Ex. 14). Because we find no reasonable explanation in this record for Dr...
To continue reading
Request your trial