SAIF v. Williams

“[T]o prove the existence and compensability of a new or omitted medical condition, the claimant must prove that his or her injury was the “material contributing cause” of the disability or need for treatment of the new or omitted condition. Schleiss v. SAIF, 354 Or 637, 643-44 (2013).

Claimant sought workers’ compensation and after the case was remanded back to the Workers’ Compensation Board, they concluded that Claimants established that his medical condition was a compensable. Now, Petitioner assigns error to the board “finding medical causation contrary to the law of the case,” and that the board did not apply the correct legal standard as the claim was one of a “new or omitted medical condition.”  The Court rejected the first assignment of error. “[T]o prove the existence and compensability of a new or omitted medical condition, the claimant must prove that his or her injury was the “material contributing cause” of  the  disability  or  need  for  treatment  of  the  new  or  omitted condition. Schleiss v. SAIF, 354 Or 637, 643-44 (2013). They found that the evidence presented in the case was well evaluated and the conclusions from the evidence “logically followed the board’s findings of fact,” and reconciled the differing opinions in the records and from the doctors. The Court rejected the second assignment of error. The correct standard to be applied is that the workplace injury must be the “material contributing cause of the need for treatment or his disability.” This standard was used in both the initial case and on remand; since it was first raised in the reply brief it is “unpreserved.” Affirmed.