Pietrzykowski v. Albertsons, Inc.
Decision Date | 04 May 2005 |
Citation | 199 Or. App. 387,111 P.3d 802 |
Parties | In the Matter of the Compensation of James D. Pietrzykowski, Claimant. James D. PIETRZYKOWSKI, Petitioner, v. ALBERTSONS, INC., Respondent. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Jodie Phillips Polich argued the cause for petitioner. With her on the opening brief were Law Offices of Jodie Anne Phillips Polich, P. C., and George J. Wall and Welch, Bruun & Green, Portland.
Kenneth Kleinsmith argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Radler, Bohy, Replogle & Miller.
Before LANDAU, Presiding Judge, and BREWER, Chief Judge, and EDMONDS, Judge.
Claimant seeks judicial review of a Workers' Compensation Board (board) order that reduced an award on reconsideration of 28.53 percent scheduled permanent partial disability for claimant's binaural hearing loss by the Department of Consumer and Business Services (department) to an award of 6.88 percent. ORS 656.298(1). In making that award, the board held that the administrative law judge (ALJ) did not err in allowing employer to raise the issue of the reliability of an audiogram for the first time at the hearing before the ALJ. We review the board's factual findings in its order for substantial evidence and its legal conclusions for errors of law, ORS 656.298(7) and ORS 183.482, and remand.
The following historical facts from the board's order frame the issue on review:
At the hearing, the ALJ framed the issue between the parties as "which audiogram [Lipman's or Lindgren's] should be used in rating claimant's permanent disability." The ALJ affirmed the notice of closure award of 6.88 percent scheduled permanent disability for binaural hearing loss concluding that "Lipman's results are less reliable * * *." On appeal, the board affirmed the ALJ's order.
On review, claimant makes two assignments of error. First, claimant argues that the board erred in its finding that employer had "no reason" to object to the use of Dr. Lipman's report until the order on reconsideration issued and in its conclusion that employer could raise the deficiency in Lipman's report for the first time at the hearing before the ALJ. In support of his argument, claimant points to his request for reconsideration of the notice of closure by the department, which included Lipman's and Lindgren's audiograms, Lindgren's concurrence with Lipman's report, and claimant's requests that Lipman's audiogram be used to rate claimant's impairment. Claimant argues that "[employer] did not raise its objection to the use of Dr. Lipman's report to rate claimant's permanent impairment during the reconsideration proceedings, and since that issue could have been raised at that point, the Employer is precluded from raising this issue at hearing." In support of that argument, claimant relies on ORS 656.283(7)2 and this court's discussion of exhaustion of administrative remedies in Everett v. SAIF, 179 Or.App. 112, 118, 38 P.3d 952, rev. den., 334 Or. 76, 45 P.3d 450 (2002).3 Employer responds that "[h]aving defined the issues [for reconsideration], the claimant had the obligation to prove his contention by competent evidence" and the failure to "demonstrate the doctor's compliance with the rules" is his alone. Employer adds that claimant, by his argument, is attempting to shift responsibility to "employer who cannot know the result of a hearing dispute until an Order of Reconsideration is issued." The uncontroverted evidence in the record shows that employer received Lipman's report in July 2001. As the board stated, the report did not mention whether claimant had been exposed to any noise during the 14 hours preceding the audiogram. OAR 436-035-0250(3)(b) provides, "Test results [from an audiogram] will be accepted only if they come from a test conducted at least 14 consecutive hours after the worker has been removed from significant exposure to noise." Claimant made his request for reconsideration by the department in March 2002. The department issued its order on reconsideration on May 13, 2002. Contained in the department's order are the following statements and conclusions:
ORS 183.482(8)(c) provides, "Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding." In order for us to conduct a review under ORS 183.482(8)(c), Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co., 90 Or.App. 200, 205, 752 P.2d 312 (1988) (footnote omitted); see also Christman v. SAIF, 181 Or.App. 191, 197-98, 45 P.3d 946 (2002)
(. )
Here, there is substantial evidence to support the ALJ's finding that Lipman's report was less reliable than Lindgren's report. A reasonable factfinder could conclude that claimant failed to carry his burden of proof regarding the extent of his disability because Lipman did not address the provisions of OAR 436-035-0250(3)(b). However, the board's rejection of claimant's argument that employer should have raised its objection to Lipman's report before the department is a different matter.
We are unable to discern from the board's order whether it rejected claimant's argument-that employer's objection had to be made to the department-on the basis of a conclusion of law, on the basis of a finding of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pietrzykowski v. Albertsons, Inc., 0204383; A130932.
...claimant's hearing loss and reinstated employer's notice of closure and award of 6.88 percent. In Pietrzykowski v. Albertsons, Inc., 199 Or.App. 387, 111 P.3d 802 (2005) (Pietrzykowski I), we reversed and remanded the board's order for a more complete explanation of its decision. On remand,......
- State v. Rowland