Opinion ID: 2606157
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Splitting

Text: A worker who is aware that it is possible that her physical condition is the product of either an occupational disease or a job-related traumatic injury may not bring two successive compensation claims seeking the same relief for the same condition. The failure to assert both theories or contentions for recovery in the first compensation claim precludes the second claim on the second theory, where finality has attached to the proceeding on the first claim and where there was an opportunity to litigate both claims at the time of the first claim. Million II, supra, 45 Or. App. at 1103, 610 P.2d 285. Compare Million v. SAIF, 35 Or. App. 269, 581 P.2d 136 (1978) [hereafter Million I ], with Million II, supra. In Million I, the Court of Appeals affirmed a denial of compensation on the ground that the worker's shoulder condition was not caused by an on-the-job traumatic injury. The facts in the Million cases are as follows. Claimant suffered a compensable injury to her hand in 1972 when she was struck there by a piece of wood. The claimant first complained of pain in her shoulder in 1973. In 1975, the claimant sought compensation for a shoulder operation as an aggravation of the 1972 injury but was rebuffed by the Board and on appeal for lack of evidence that the shoulder condition was due to the trauma of the 1972 industrial injury. Million I, supra. The claimant later sought compensation for the shoulder operation on the previously unstated and unlitigated theory that the condition was caused by occupational disease. In Million II, the Court of Appeals concluded that res judicata barred a second claim for workers' compensation for the shoulder condition based on an occupational disease theory, 45 Or. App. at 1102-03, 610 P.2d 285. The Court of Appeals concluded: We think the evidence shows that claimant and her attorney were, at the time of filing of her aggravation claim in 1975, aware that it was also possible that her shoulder condition was, in whole or part, the product of an occupational disease. Under the circumstances, a claim on this theory should have been made in 1975. 45 Or. App. at 1103, 610 P.2d 285. The first Million decision determined only that a shoulder condition did not result from the traumatic injury to the worker's hand. That was the question litigated, decided, essential to the decision, and embodied in an order final after appeal, thereby precluding that issue from being relitigated. But, because there was also an opportunity, before the first decision became final, to litigate whether the shoulder injury or condition was due to some other aspect of the worker's job, the first final decision that the shoulder injury was not work related ( Million I ) precluded further litigation on any other job-causation theory, Million II. That conclusion  that the shoulder condition was not job related  could not be relitigated because of claim preclusion rules. Conversely, in North Clackamas School Dist. v. White, supra , the first litigation and decision established that the hip-girdle injury occurred when a worker slipped on some steps at work. The first decision also established that the injury did not produce a loss of earnings at the time of the first final decision because the worker remained able to work, although the need for medical treatment continued and pain arising from the time of injury persisted. Thereafter the worker pressed an aggravation claim. The referee and the Board found that there was no worsening because the injury did not deprive the worker of earnings but also found that medical treatment should be continued because needed treatment was for the work injury. This is the second decision referred to herein. The Court of Appeals reversed, invoking res judicata, holding that the compensability of claimant's hip condition had already been determined, i.e., it was not compensable. [9] This court reversed and reinstated the entitlement to medical treatment for the hip-girdle condition, as ordered by the Board. The first decision established that slipping on the steps produced a hip-girdle injury. The second decision was in agreement on that issue. North Clackamas School Dist. v. White, supra, 305 Or. at 57, 750 P.2d 485. Both decisions established that there was a continuing need for medical care which was job related. No preclusion attached to the worker's request for continuing medical care for the job injury.