Arms v. SAIF

“Whether for purposes of the compensability of medi¬cal treatment, a claimant’s condition is analyzed as a consequential condition only under ORS 656.245 or as an “ordinary” condition under ORS 656.245 and ORS 656.225 makes little difference; in either case, treatment of the worsened pre-existing condition is compensable if the accepted work injury or its treatment was the major contributing cause of the worsened condition.”

Claimant sought review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board. Claimant assigned error to the Board’s holding that the proposed surgical treatment for the worsening of Claimant’s preexisting cervical condition was not compensable. On appeal, Claimant argued that the surgery was compensable pursuant to ORS 656.225. In response, SAIF argued that Claimant’s worsened condition was a “consequential condition,” that medical services are compensable only if they relate to a compensable condition and had there been no compensable condition to which they related to each other, Claimant’s requested medical services were not compensable. “Whether for purposes of the compensability of medi¬cal treatment, a claimant’s condition is analyzed as a consequential condition only under ORS 656.245 or as an “ordinary” condition under ORS 656.245 and ORS 656.225 makes little difference; in either case, treatment of the worsened pre-existing condition is compensable if the accepted work injury or its treatment was the major contributing cause of the worsened condition.” The Court of Appeals held that the Board erred, and the Board should reconsider consistent with this opinion. Reversed and remanded.