Rochette v. Carehere (In re Rochette), A177372

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Writing for the Court: EGAN, J.
• Citation: 322 Or.App. 766
• Parties: In the Matter of the Compensation of Robert Rochette, Claimant. v. CAREHERE, Respondent. Robert ROCHETTE, Petitioner,
• Docket Number: A177372
• Decision Date: 23 November 2022

322 Or.App. 766

In the Matter of the Compensation of Robert Rochette, Claimant.

Robert ROCHETTE, Petitioner,
v.
CAREHERE, Respondent.

A177372

Court of Appeals of Oregon

November 23, 2022

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

Submitted October 26, 2022.

Workers' Compensation Board 1906113, 2002570.

Aaron S. Price and Welch, Bruun & Green fled the briefs for petitioner.

Courtney C. Kreutz fled the brief for respondent.

Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Judge, and Kamins, Judge.

1

[322 Or.App. 767] EGAN, J.

In a petition for judicial review, claimant, who suffered a compensable injury at work, challenges an order of the Workers' Compensation Board affirming an order of an administrative law judge (AL J) upholding employer's denial of claimant's new/omitted medical condition claims for a right shoulder rotator cuff tear and a right biceps tendon rupture. Contrary to claimant's contention, the board did not fail to decide claimant's challenge to the denial of the rotator cuff tear; the board simply affirmed the AL J's order upholding the denial without writing further. Substantial evidence supports the board's determination that that claim is not compensable. See ORS 183.482(8)(c) (setting forth substantial evidence standard). Substantial evidence also supports the board's determination upholding the denial of the new/omitted medical condition claim for a biceps tendon rupture, based on the board's determination that claimant did not establish the existence of the claimed condition.

Affirmed.

2