Gramada v. SAIF Corp.

“A finding of impairment requires (1) that there is a loss of use or function of the body part or system, and (2) that the loss is due to the compensable injury.” Robinette v. SAIF, 369 Or 767, 781-82 (2022) (citing ORS 656.214). “Each loss of use or function is to be considered separately, and a loss is ‘due to the compensable injury’ when the accepted condition is found to be a material cause of the loss.” Johnson v. SAIF, 369 Or 707, 603 (2022); Robinette, 369 Or at 784.

Petitioner experienced “sharp lower back pain and lower abdominal pain” after helping a patient into a shower while at work. A medical arbiter’s report found that the ongoing loss of function to Petitioners back was due to preexisting degenerative conditions and unassociated with the resolved lumbar strain injury she suffered at work. Based on the medical arbiter’s findings, Respondent issued a notice of closure in Petitioner’s worker’s compensation claim that stated Petitioner’s accepted condition (the lumbar strain) was resolved and awarded only temporary disability benefits. Respondent’s closure decision was subsequently affirmed by an administrative law judge and Workers’ Compensation Board. Petitioner then sought judicial review of the Board’s determination arguing that she suffered a “compensable injury” regardless of whether the ongoing loss of function to her back resulted from the lumber strain. “A finding of impairment requires (1) that there is a loss of use or function of the body part or system, and (2) that the loss is due to the compensable injury.” Robinette v. SAIF, 369 Or 767, 781-82 (2022) (citing ORS 656.214). “Each loss of use or function is to be considered separately, and a loss is ‘due to the compensable injury’ when the accepted condition is found to be a material cause of the loss.” Johnson v. SAIF, 369 Or 707, 603 (2022); Robinette, 369 Or at 784. The Court reasoned that because the medical arbiter found that Petitioner’s accepted condition was not “in material part a cause of loss of use or function to her lower back,” Petitioner’s loss of function was not an impairment due to a compensable injury because it was not due to her accepted condition. Thus, the Court held that Petitioner’s loss of function failed the second prong of the Robinette test, and that the Board “did not err in not awarding permanent partial disability” to Petitioner. Affirmed.