Case Title: Schuler v. Beaverton School District No. 48J

Citation: 

Docket Number: S47320

State: oregon

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Date: 2002-06-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
Filed: June 27, 2002
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
In the Matter of the Compensation of
Melissa R. Schuler, Claimant.
MELISSA R. SCHULER,
Petitioner on Review,
	v.
BEAVERTON SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 48J,
Respondent on Review.
(WCB 97-01397; CA A101276; SC S47320)
	On review from the Court of Appeals.*
	Argued and submitted January 10, 2001.
	Charles Robinowitz, Portland, argued the cause and filed the
brief for petitioner on review.
	David L. Johnstone, of VavRosky, MacColl, Olson, Busch &
Pfeifer, P.C., Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for
respondent on review.
	James S. Coon, of Swanson, Thomas & Coon, Portland, filed
the brief for amicus curiae Oregon Trial Lawyers Association.
	Before Carson, Chief Justice, and Gillette, Durham, Leeson,
Riggs, and De Muniz, Justices.**
	RIGGS, J.
	The decision of the Court of Appeals and the order of the
Workers' Compensation Board are affirmed.
	*Judicial review from the Workers' Compensation Board. 164 Or App 320, 992 P2d 467 (1999).
	**Kulongoski, J., resigned June 14, 2001, and did not
participate in the decision of this case.  Balmer, J., did not
participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
	RIGGS, J.
	In this workers' compensation case, claimant sought
judicial review of the decision of the Workers' Compensation
Board (board) to deny her workers' compensation benefits.  A
three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed, with one
judge dissenting.  Schuler v. Beaverton School District No. 48J,
164 Or App 320, 992 P2d 467 (1999).  For the reasons that follow,
we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals and the order of
the board.
	The following undisputed facts are taken from the Court
of Appeals' opinion:
"Claimant is a substitute instructional aide employed
by the Beaverton School District.  In February 1995,
she injured her back and neck in a noncompensable motor
vehicle accident.  At that time, x-rays revealed
degenerative disc disease at C6-7.  On June 8, 1995,
claimant was injured when she slipped and fell at work. 
She sought treatment with Dr. Soot in August 1995.  At
that time, an MRI revealed a disc protrusion at C6-7. 
In November 1995, employer accepted the claim for low
back, cervical, groin and right-wrist strains.
"In March 1996, employer issued a partial denial of
claimant's degenerative disc disease at C6-7.  Claimant
did not appeal this denial and her claim was closed in
April 1996.  She was awarded temporary partial
disability but no permanent partial disability.  In
June 1996, claimant again sought treatment with Soot
because of increased difficulty with pain in her neck
and left shoulder and arm.  At that time, claimant told
Soot that she had not engaged in any unusual activity
nor were these symptoms precipitated by any injury.  In
July 1996, claimant reported to Soot that she had felt
a pop in her neck while putting in eye drops and that
she was pain free for several days afterward.  However,
later, after moving bark dust, she again experienced
significant pain.
"While at work on September 26, 1996, claimant
physically restrained a student who was misbehaving. 
She experienced neck and shoulder pain at home that
evening.  On September 30, claimant again saw Soot. 
She reported that her left shoulder and arm had become
progressively worse since the week before.  Soot noted
that this worsening occurred after some activity at
work, but that 'there was no really acute increase
following any one particular episode.  The pains now
have been very difficult to cope with.'  Soot referred
claimant to a neurosurgeon, Dr. Waller, whom claimant
saw on October 1.  An MRI, conducted on that day,
revealed degenerative disc changes at C6-7 with
progression of left-sided disc protrusion/herniation
with compromise of the left foramen and possible slight
displacement of the left side of the spinal cord. 
Waller diagnosed persistent C7 radiculopathy with
increased symptoms due to left C6-7 disc herniation. 
He performed left cervical C6-7 diskectomy and
foraminotomy surgery on October 3.  The surgery was
successful, and claimant was released to return to work
on October 25, 1996.
"On November 8, 1996, claimant filed an 801 form,
claiming benefits for her alleged September 26 injury. 
Employer denied the claim on the basis that claimant's
work was not the major cause of the worsening of her
preexisting degenerative disc disease and herniation at
C6-7.
"Claimant sought review of the employer's denial. 
After a hearing the administrative law judge (ALJ) set
aside employer's denial holding that, although the
preexisting condition was the major portion of the
condition being treated, the work injury was the
immediate cause of the need for treatment and,
therefore, the treatment was compensable.  The Board
reversed the ALJ, noting that the case relied on by the
ALJ, SAIF v. Nehl, 148 Or App 101, 939 P2d 96, modified
on recons 149 Or App 309, 942 P2d 859 (1997), rev den
326 Or 389[, 952 P2d 62] (1998), had since been
modified by [the Court of Appeals] to clarify that,
under ORS 656.005(7)(a)(B), a claimant must establish
that the work injury was not only the precipitating
cause but the major contributing cause of the
claimant's disability or need for treatment.  The Board
explained, relying on Dietz v. Ramuda, 130 Or App 397,
401, 882 P2d 618 (1994), rev dismissed 321 Or 416[, 898
P2d 768] (1995), that the determination of a major
contributing cause includes evaluating the relative
contributions of different causes of the claimant's
need for treatment of the combined condition and then
deciding which is the primary cause."
Schuler, 164 Or App at 322-23.  
	The board reviewed the medical evidence on the issue of
causation, which consisted of the opinions of three doctors.  All
three doctors agreed that claimant had preexisting degenerative
disc disease and a preexisting disc protrusion.  Only Dr. Waller,
however, suggested that the work-related injury was the major
contributing cause of the need for treatment.  Waller, who
operated on claimant's herniated C6-7 disc, gave the following
opinion in a letter:
"[Claimant] has had more than one episode of neck 
symptomatology.  Based on my review of the records
however, it would appear that she did have symptoms of
a pre-existing condition, when she developed symptoms
of neck and left arm [pain] after a vacation in
Arizona.  An MRI scan on August 1, 1995, identified a
disk herniation or osteophyte or combination of the two
on the left at C6-7.  She improved and surgery was not
being considered.  
     "The event that led to the need for surgery was
the control of an unruly student when she developed a
profound exacerbation of left-sided neck and shoulder
pain that became incapacitating.  This prompted a new
MRI scan.  It was difficult for me to tell if there was
actually any anatomical worsening between the two
studies, but her symptoms certainly did.  
     "Therefore, I would state that she had a  pre-existing condition that was producing fairly minimal
symptomatology, certainly not to the point that surgery
was being considered, until the event with the unruly
student.  Therefore, I believe that event should be
considered the major contributing cause to [sic] the
need for surgery."
(Emphasis added.)
	In a deposition, Waller testified on cross-examination:
		"Q.   Would it be a fair statement, then, that
perhaps the incident with the student did nothing more
than be the inciting event or the precipitating event
leading to surgery?
		"A.  It's not an unreasonable way to put it."
On redirect, Waller testified:
		"Q.  As I understand your letter[,] * * * is it
your opinion that the event that she had was the major
contributing cause of her need for surgery based on a
medically probable standard?
		"A.  I'll answer that by saying I don't -- I don't
want to take anything out of context.  In the same
letter I commented that I couldn't tell if there was
any anatomical worsening between the new and the old
MR[I] scans, but it was the precipitation of symptoms
provoked by the control of an unruly student that
prompted the need for surgery."
(Emphasis added.)
	After reviewing the evidence, the board stated:
	"[W]e are not persuaded that claimant has established
that the work injury was the major contributing cause
of the disability or need for treatment of the combined
condition.  In this regard, although Dr. Waller
believed that the injury provoked symptoms and
precipitated the need for claimant's surgery, we are
not persuaded that Dr. Waller weighed the contribution
from the work injury against the contribution from the
preexisting disc herniation to determine which was the
major contributing cause of claimant's need for
treatment of the combined condition. * * * Under such
circumstances, we find that claimant has not
established compensability of the combined condition."
	A divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed the
board.  The majority held that substantial evidence supported the
board's determination that Waller had not weighed the
contribution of the work-related injury against the contribution
of the preexisting condition and that claimant thus had failed to
prove that the work-related injury was the major contributing
cause of the need for treatment of her combined condition. 
Schuler, 164 Or App at 327-28.  The majority stated that,
although it might have found differently if it had been the fact-finder, a reasonable person could have found that Waller had
failed to weigh the relative contributions of claimant's
preexisting condition and the work injury to determine her need
for treatment.  Id.  Because Waller's opinion was the only
medical evidence that supported the relevant causation standard,
the majority affirmed the board's order. (1)
	Senior Judge Warden, sitting by designation, dissented
from the majority's holding that substantial evidence supported
the board's finding with respect to Waller.  Id. at 328.  He
would have held that the "only material medical evidence" on the
question of what was the major cause of claimant's combined
condition was Waller's letter and deposition testimony, and that
that evidence could support but one conclusion:  Claimant's work
injury was the major contributing cause of her need for
treatment.  Id. at 329-30 (Warden, J., dissenting).
	This case involves the application of ORS
656.005(7)(a)(B), which provides:
		"If an otherwise compensable injury combines at
any time with a preexisting condition to cause or
prolong disability or a need for treatment, the
combined condition is compensable only if, so long as
and to the extent that the otherwise compensable injury
is the major contributing cause of the disability of
the combined condition or the major contributing cause
of the need for treatment of the combined condition."
The parties appear to agree that claimant's injury in restraining
the unruly student was an otherwise compensable injury and that
that injury combined with claimant's preexisting condition to
cause a need for treatment.  The only question presented to this
court is whether the board permissibly concluded that claimant
failed to meet her burden of showing that the injury arising from
the incident with the student was "the major contributing cause
of the need for treatment of the combined condition."  Id.
	The burden is on claimant to show that her injury is
compensable.  ORS 656.266.  To show that an "otherwise
compensable injury is * * * the major contributing cause of the
need for treatment of the combined condition," a claimant must
show that the otherwise compensable injury contributed more to
the need for treatment than all other causes combined. See
Smothers v. Gresham Transfer, Inc., 332 Or 83, 133, 23 P3d 333
(2001) (major contributing cause "contributes more * * * than all
other causes combined").
	The board was not persuaded that Waller had determined
that the work injury was the major contributing cause of
claimant's need for treatment.  That was a permissible inference
from the evidence.  Although Waller's letter used the words
"major contributing cause" Waller's subsequent deposition
testimony did not describe the work-related injury as the major
contributing cause, and, instead, opined that the incident with
the student "precipitated" claimant's need for treatment.  The
board reasonably could construe Waller's testimony to confirm
only that claimant's work-related injury was last in the chain of
causes that led to the need for treatment.  Testimony that a
cause came last in the chain of causation does not establish
necessarily whether that cause also contributed more to the need
for treatment than all other causes combined.
	It is undisputed that the remaining medical evidence
failed to establish that claimant's work-related injury was the
major contributing cause of the need for treatment. 
Consequently, the board did not err in holding that claimant had
failed to prove that her claim was compensable.
	The decision of the Court of Appeals and the order of
the Workers' Compensation Board are affirmed.
1. The majority of the Court of Appeals appears to have
treated this primarily as a "substantial evidence" case.  It is,
more accurately, a case of whether claimant has satisfied her
burden of proof.