Miller v. SAIF

In determining whether an employee should be compensated under a work-related injury, the court should review the evidence and if, “when, the medical evidence identifies a condition causing the claimant’s symptoms and established that the condition developed gradually over time, the claimant has not experienced an injury, and the claim must be analyzed as an occupation disease.” Jewell v. SAIF, 291 Or App 703, 705, . . . P3d . . . (2018).

Claimant appealed an order from the Workers’ Compensation Board that determined his shoulder condition was “compensable as an occupational disease,” but not as an accidental injury. Claimant assigned error to the board’s denial of an injury claim given the medical evidence established. On appeal, Claimant argued that he was entitled to both claims because the medical evidence showed an occupational disease existed and that the occupational disease worsened as a result of an injury during work-related activities "consisting of tears to his already-degenerated rotator cuff tendons." In response, Defendant argued the board was correct in using the “occupational-disease analysis” when reviewing Claimant’s claims because the evidence showed his condition was a result of a series of traumatic events, not just the one injury. When determining whether an employee injury qualifies for compensation as a work-related injury, the court should review if, “the medical evidence identifies a condition causing the claimant’s symptoms and established that the condition developed gradually over time, the claimant has not experienced an injury, and the claim must be analyzed as an occupational disease.” Jewell v. SAIF, 291 Or App 703, 705, P3d (2018). The Oregon Court of Appeals held that the board did not err in its analysis because the “accidental-injury standard” was not applicable since there was no evidence to show that Claimant required medical treatment as a result of one specific injury at work; instead the evidence showed it was a combination of “different causal mechanisms.”  Affirmed.