Claimant works for employer as a certified medication aid (CMA). Claimant's job overseeing distribution of medication for approximately 50 patients per shift has a "light" classification, and involves continuously being on her feet, frequently changing positions, walking, and standing. Claimant's job also requires squatting to reach a medication drawer, occasional sitting, repositioning a patient, and helping an RN by lifting or holding a limb.
Claimant suffered an injury at work while moving a bed. SAIF accepted a claim for lumbar strain, left hip strain, and trochanteric bursitis. Within a week or so of the injury, claimant was released to modified work at her regular hours and wages. At the time of claim closure, claimant was examined by Dr. Wong at SAIF's request. In rating claimant's limitation in repetitive use relating to the left hip, Wong had a choice of "no limitation," "some limitation," or "significant limitation," and he checked the box indicating that claimant had "some limitation." Claimant's treating physician concurred in that opinion. Given
"A worker is entitled to a 5% chronic condition impairment value for each applicable body part, when a preponderance of medical opinion establishes that, due to a chronic and permanent medical condition, the worker is significantly limited in the repetitive use of [a list of body parts including the hip]."
Claimant sought a rating for chronic condition impairment for the hip, but SAIF rejected it. The claim was closed with an award of one percent whole person impairment and 17 percent work disability, but no rating for chronic condition impairment. Claimant requested reconsideration. The board ultimately upheld the award. The board explained that, considering the medical evidence as a whole, the evidence did not support the conclusion that claimant had significant limitations so as to support a rating for chronic condition impairment. The board rejected claimant's contention that the evidence that claimant has "some limitation" or will have "difficulty" performing certain movements necessarily establishes a significant limitation on repetitive use.
In our first opinion on judicial review in this case, we concluded that the board's order had not provided an adequate explanation or substantial reason for its conclusion that "difficulty" repetitively performing certain tasks does not establish significant impairment for purposes of OAR 436-035-0019(1)(i). We remanded the case for the board to further explain its reasoning. Spurger ,
Pending remand, we issued our opinion in Godinez v. SAIF ,
Godinez did not deal with the precise issue presented here as to what constitutes a "significant" limitation. But, in concluding that the ARU's interpretation of the rule was plausible, our opinion did refer to dictionary definitions of "significant":
"The definition of 'significant' includes 'having meaning' and 'having or likely to have influence or effect'; it is synonymous with 'important,' 'weighty,' and 'notable.' "
"On this record, we do not find that a 'difficulty' with such activities establishes a meaningful or important limitation in the repetitive use of claimant's hip. In other words, such a restriction is not 'full of import' and does not 'meaningfully' limit claimant from doing anything."
On judicial review, claimant contends that the board's order fails to explain why a "difficulty" performing repetitive squatting, walking long distances, and static standing is not a "meaningful" and "important" limitation on claimant's use of her hip, and we agree. It is possible, as SAIF contends, that the board concluded that those limitations are not sufficient because they are not general or comprehensive but are limited to just one motion, see Godinez ,
Reversed and remanded.
Notes
The board stated in a footnote that the other synonyms for "significant" "could be considered when evaluating whether a particular record in a given case is sufficient to establish the existence of a 'significant limitation' in support of a chronic condition impairment award."
The board said in its order on remand that it could not tell from the record whether the work schedule limitations recommended by Wong were related to the repetitive use of claimant's hip. We note that the only limitation noted in Wong's report was the repetitive hip limitation.