*1 Argued April and submitted December affirmed In the Compensation Matter Gallea,

Cindy Claimant.

GALLEA, Petitioner, INDUSTRIES, WILLAMETTE Respondent.

(WCB 80-07747, A21787) Case No. CA

643 P2d 390 Doblie, Portland, Gerald argued the cause petitioner. On the brief were Doblie, James L. Francesconi and Fran- Welch, P.C., cesconi & Portland. Portland,

Emil R. Berg, argued respondent. cause for On the brief were Daryll Wolf, Griffith, E. Klein and Bittner, Roberts, Abbott & Portland. Richardson, Judge, and Thornton and Presiding

Before Hoomissen, Judges. Van

THORNTON, J. Hoomissen, J., dissenting. Van *2 THORNTON, J.

Claimant raises two issues in this workers’ com- She pensation case. contends she is entitled to an unscheduled award for permanent partial her shoulder and that considering Board erred in not an additional medical and in not her remanding claim to the referee for consideration of the affirm. We is years age.

Claimant She employed by was Willamette Industries. In March of she first felt a “snap” right in her while working “green wrist on the Although pain chain.”1 she arm, felt in her wrist and she doctor problem see a for the until August, when she saw Crook. advised to perform only duties at the light mill.

Claimant’s was injury diagnosed by a neurologist, a carpal Dr. Throop, syndrome as tunnel and on December 4, 1979, right carpal tunnel decompression surgery was performed by Dr. Crook. returned to work but able only fairly to work months light duty. two On January 30, saw of diffuse complaining pain and numbness her entire arm. Dr. Crook could not make positive orthopedic neurological findings to support complaints. She was re-examined *3 March, Throop in He 1980. concluded that claimant’s symptoms were either functional in nature or due to an apparent compromise at the region. thoracic outlet positive (a stated that the Adson’s maneuver method of detecting syndrome), thoracic outlet the nature of the dif- symptomotology fuse and the electrical studies reflected a at the brachioplexus Throop’s lesion level. Dr. report, how- ever, failed to relate specifically this condition to claimant’s March, 1979, injury.2 to talking Throop, After Dr. reported Crook that:

“Apparently patient has electrical evidence of slow- ing in the on right area thoracic outlet side explain which would her rather diffuse and at bizarre times symptoms. historically, symptoms, appear The to 1Working “green moving pulling on the chain” involved lumber chain off a placing piles. and it in any note that claimant stated that she had never had relief right Throop her and from hand forearm. Dr. further noted that claimant related pain upper returning right in numbness and her arm after to work. mill at and for her work activities

be exacerbated her 6 weeks of reason it has been elected to treat with this inactivity. end of that She will be reassessed at the relative time.” 30, 1980, and again April saw claimant Crook complain to of considerable

reported that she continued fact she despite her had pain right in shoulder also a reported positive was last seen. He worked since she bilaterally at that time. He advised Adson’s maneuver felt rehabilitation and given consideration be to vocational increase, thor- continued to a symptoms if claimant’s might required. decompression acic outlet be still 11, 1980, reported Dr. Crook July On tender the thoracic right girdle, of her over complained a degree displayed a and diffuse decreased outlet to mild July right extremity. in her On upper sensation medically stationary, symp- because her felt claimant was receiving be and she was not toms continued to stable treatments. diagnostic therapeutic August A Order on Determination right percent for loss of use of her awarded claimant again saw claimant August forearm. On time, pain. At that she had complain who continued to bilaterally. He believed claim- negative Adson’s maneuver require repeti- do that did not strenuous or ant could work upper tive of her extremities. use and hearing testified that March, from discomfort experience pain continued to She found household to time although her perform. She stated that functions difficult feels frozen and had her arm sometimes improved, wrist experiences sharp pain in neck and that she numb percent for The referee awarded claimant shoulder. disability partial to claimant’s permanent unscheduled the earlier 7.5 equal degrees to 48 addition to shoulder of her wrist. degree Determination Order injury, affirmed but the award for wrist The Board award, finding that there reversed unscheduled causally relating was no medical evidence *4 establishing that injury, to the wrist condition impairment of establishing any or is permanent condition earning capacity. wage

767 by pre The burden is on claimant to establish a ponderance particular disability, of the evidence that specifically legally condition, was medically by compensable a caused accident. Edwards App SAIF, 21, 23, 189, Or 566 P2d rev den Or 301 (1977). required expert Proof of medical causation here syn establishing medical evidence that thoracic outlet by compensable drome was caused Dr. accident. Neither Throop Crook nor Dr. that stated claimant’s shoulder by by March, was 1979, incident, condition caused or any on-the-job injury. report other Dr. Crook’s her her that “symptoms, historically, appear by to be exacerbated work activities at the mill” does establish that an on- the-job injury syndrome. caused thoracic outlet findWe that claimant has failed to establish that her thoracic outlet syndrome by compensable was caused accident. assigns

Claimant also as error the refusal Board’s report by an consider additional medical or to Crook report. remand the claim to the referee for admission of the requests In alternative, we consider the 656.298(6). report additional ORS The was in the by attorney. form of a letter Dr. Crook to claimant’s In pertinent part, it stated: 5, note, March “The 1980 office which is also enclosed review, your clearly patient demonstrates

indeed have a syndrome. thoracic outlet From a historical standpoint, I would syn- conclude that the thoracic outlet probably present drome increasing degree was to an all along any the absence of other historical evidence to explain existence, its would conclude that it was a result injury.” her industrial apparently The was based on con- examinations by ducted Crook on October and March by 1980. The letter was written on October hearing, 1980, the date of the but was not received attorney day claimant’s until a two after No attempt keep open was made to the record for submission attempt letter.3 first to admit the letter after employer Board on review December 1980. attorney in a Claimant’s stated letter to Board on December prior appeal, employer’s to the when received letter he contacted *5 authority to consider this addi-

The Board had no hearing part at and not a tional evidence not admitted the SAIF, record. Brown v. 389, 625 1351 App of 51 Or P2d the Therefore, (1981). claimant’s that the Board admit request 656.295(5), the properly the denied. Under ORS report was evi- may remand a case to the referee for further Board improperly, incompletely has been taking dence if the case a report Because insufficiently developed. or otherwise well in advance of the could have been available examination, and it the of the because hearing, given dates by Dr. Crook months on examinations conducted based its say the we that the Board abused hearing, before cannot 656.295(5) to remand the refusing discretion under ORS in case the referee. to requests, alternatively, we consider that reasons, so.

the like we decline to do letter ourselves. For 656.298(6) ORS at the report was “obtainable” under 4 Markets, Maumary Mayfair v. See also time v. (1973); 180, App 183-84, 14 512 P2d 1370 Or Mansfield Bros., (1970). Caplener 785 App 3 Or 474 P2d Affirmed. HOOMISSEN, dissenting.

VAN my legiti- in view a I because respectfully dissent being is here as a result of misunder- mate claim denied this, attorneys. the In a case such as standing between has the referee’s order which where the Board reversed report attempt attorney. not to because He contends that introduce Opinion report employer’s attorney until after that not be introduced asked might report if the be a for the and for the reason that there need Order Employer’s attorney compensable. responded in a claim referee found report, hearing he told after of letter the Board on December that to report attorney object it that that he would to the admission of claimant’s testimony report necessary if the were admitted. to take additional would be submit conversation “claimant decided not to that as a result maintained time, might at this but advised [claimant’s counsel] the medical objection I attempt I later as I have same to submit it later. advised would * * had time at 4 request case further that we remand the to referee for Claimant does not SAIF, 656.298(6); App taking. P2d Or 621 ORS 49 evidence See Penifold remand, (1980). compelling to we find no reason Even if had (1981). Terminals, App Or 621 P2d Russell v. A & D do so. for an unscheduled award granted in condition, should be resolved all doubts right of the claim on its complete of a full and resolution favor in compensation is remedial char- merits. The workers’ law to liberally promote construed acter should be by the Newell v. legislature. results intended beneficial (1958). al, Taylor et 212 Or 321 P2d 294 Procedural yield public policy implicit should to the technicalities I the law. would remand the referee consideration 656.298(6). Dr. Crook’s ORS