Carrillo v. SAIF

A combined condition involves the combination of two separate conditions. Brown v. SAIF, 361 Or 241, 255-56, 391 P3d 773 (2017); Multifoods Specialty Distribution v. McAtee, 333 Or 629, 634, 43 P3d 1101 (2002).

Petitioner sought judicial review of the Worker’s Compensation Board’s order upholding the denial of his initial injury claim. The board, on reconsideration after the Court’s first order, determined that Petitioner’s claim was for a combined condition and that Petitioner’s work activities were a “material contributing cause but not the major contributing cause of his need for treatment.”  On appeal, Petitioner argued that the board erred by rejecting Petitioner’s assertions that (1) a “combined condition” constitutes the combination of separate medical conditions and (2) a “symptomatic flare-up of a preexisting condition cannot combine with the preexisting condition itself.”  In response, SAIF argued that the board’s conclusions were correct.  A combined condition involves the combination of two separate conditions.  Brown v. SAIF, 361 Or 241, 255-56, 391 P3d 773 (2017); Multifoods Specialty Distribution v. McAtee, 333 Or 629, 634, 43 P3d 1101 (2002).  The Court concluded that the board should have considered whether Petitioner’s symptomatic flareup was “compensable as a worsening of his preexisting condition.”  The Court held that the board erred when it determined the symptoms of Petitioner’s preexisting condition “combined with the preexisting condition itself to give rise to a combined condition claim.”  Reversed and remanded.