Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the claimant sought review of a Workers' Compensation Board decision that reduced his Permanent Partial Disability (PPD) award, originally granted for an accepted occupational disease, carpal tunnel syndrome. The central issue was whether the diminished motion in the claimant's fingers, which was initially compensated, was causally linked to the occupational disease. Upon reassessment by a medical arbiter panel, it was determined that the reduced finger motion was not due to the accepted condition but rather the claimant's body habitus. The Appellate Review Unit (ARU) accordingly reduced the PPD award from 34 percent to 4 percent. The claimant appealed, arguing that the board's authority to apportion impairment should be limited to certain types of claim closures and that impairments should be evaluated based on the Oregon Disability Rating Standards. The court, referencing McDermott v. SAIF and Magana-Marquez v. SAIF, affirmed the board's decision, clarifying that impairment apportionment is permissible regardless of claim closure type as long as the impairment is not attributable to the compensable condition. Consequently, the board's reduction of the claimant's PPD benefits was upheld, as the claimed impairment lacked a causal link to the accepted occupational disease, rendering the claimant ineligible for additional PPD benefits.
Legal Issues Addressed
Application of Oregon Disability Rating Standardssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The board must apply uniform disability rating standards, but only impairments caused by the accepted condition are compensable.
Reasoning: Claimant asserted that the board did not properly apply the uniform disability rating standards, specifically OAR 436-035-0060. However, the board and the Administrative Review Unit (ARU) correctly determined that the claimant's reduced range of motion, while below standard norms, was not caused by the accepted condition.
Apportionment of Impairment under ORS 656.268subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Impairment can be apportioned regardless of claim closure type under ORS 656.268(1)(a), provided the impairment is not caused by the compensable condition.
Reasoning: The court finds that McDermott precludes claimant's first argument, clarifying that the board can apportion impairment regardless of the claim closure type, provided a causal link exists between the compensable injury or disease and PPD.
Causation Requirement for Impairment Awards under ORS 656.214subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Impairment and PPD benefits are contingent on a causal link between the compensable injury or occupational disease and the impairment.
Reasoning: Definitions in ORS 656.214 regarding impairment and PPD emphasize that benefits are contingent on the compensable injury or occupational disease, necessitating apportionment when impairment does not result from the compensable condition.
Workers' Compensation and Permanent Partial Disability (PPD) Awardssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The board can reduce a PPD award if the impairment is not caused by the accepted occupational disease.
Reasoning: Claimant petitions for review of a Workers' Compensation Board order that reduced his permanent partial disability (PPD) award, concluding that his accepted occupational disease did not cause his diminished finger motion.