423 P.3d 121
Or. Ct. App.2018Background
- Claimant (a certified medication aid) injured her left hip at work; SAIF accepted lumbar strain, left hip strain, and trochanteric bursitis and closed the claim with 1% WPI and 17% work disability but denied a 5% chronic condition impairment for the hip under OAR 436-035-0019(1)(i).
- Job duties: light-classified but continuously on feet, frequent position changes, walking, standing, squatting to reach drawers, occasional lifting/repositioning of patients.
- Dr. Wong (SAIF examiner) and claimant’s treating physician agreed claimant has "some limitation" for repetitive hip use and would have "difficulty" with repetitive squatting, long-distance walking, and prolonged static standing; Wong recommended light/sedentary work and a modified schedule.
- The Board concluded the record did not show a "significant" ("meaningful"/"important") limitation in repetitive hip use sufficient for the 5% chronic-condition award and upheld denial; one member dissented.
- This court previously remanded for further explanation; after remand the Board again denied relief; the court again finds the Board’s explanation inadequate and reverses and remands.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claimant is entitled to a 5% chronic-condition impairment for the hip under OAR 436-035-0019(1)(i) | "Some limitation" and physician statement of "difficulty" with repetitive squatting/standing/walking meets "significant" limitation standard | The limitations described are not "meaningful" or "important"; do not meet the rule’s higher threshold for chronic impairment | Court: Board failed to adequately explain why "difficulty" does not constitute a significant limitation; remand for reconsideration |
| Proper meaning of "significant" in the rule | Argued that "difficulty" performing repetitive motions can be significant enough for the 5% award | Board treated "significant" as requiring a meaningful/important restriction and arguably a broader overall limitation than a single motion | Court: Board’s conclusion insufficiently explained; cannot defer without substantial reasoning |
Key Cases Cited
- Spurger v. SAIF, 266 Or. App. 183, 337 P.3d 883 (Or. App. 2014) (remanded for inadequate explanation of why certain limitations are not "significant" under the chronic-impairment rule)
- Godinez v. SAIF, 269 Or. App. 578, 346 P.3d 530 (Or. App. 2015) (upheld ARU interpretation requiring a higher threshold for chronic-condition impairment and discussed "significant" as meaning "important" or "notable")