Opinion ID: 1118901
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Temporary partial disability (ORS 656.212)

Text: ORS 656.212 provides: When the disability is or becomes partial only and is temporary in character, the worker shall receive for a period not exceeding two years that proportion of the payments provided for temporary total disability which his loss of earning capacity at any kind of work bears to his earning power existing at the time of the occurrence of the injury. No other statutes provide payment of compensation for impaired earning capacity. Increased symptoms in and of themselves are not compensable and not sufficient to require the payment of additional compensation, unless the worker suffers pain or additional disability that results in loss of the worker's ability to work and the worker thereby suffers a loss of earning capacity. Harwell v. Argonaut Insurance Co., 296 Or. 505, 678 P.2d 1202 (1984). A worker may be able to continue to work at a present job but still suffer a loss of earning capacity to carry on other work in the broad field of general occupations, see ORS 656.214(5), because of a worsened condition. That is, in a claim for increased compensation for unscheduled disability under ORS 656.273, the worker need not show that he is less able to work in his present employment, but must prove that his symptoms have increased or otherwise demonstrate that his underlying condition has worsened so that he is less able to work in the broad field of general occupations resulting in a loss of earning capacity. In cases such as this we emphasize that the test for loss of earning capacity for unscheduled disability claims is to be measured by the worker's ability to obtain and hold gainful employment in the broad field of general occupations, taking into consideration such factors as age, education, training, skills and work experience. ORS 656.214(5). As Chief Judge Schwab aptly explained in Ford v. SAIF, 7 Or. App. 549, 552-53, 492 P.2d 491 (1972): Earning capacity must be considered in connection with a workman's handicap in obtaining and holding gainful employment in the broad field of general industrial occupations and not just in relationship to his occupation at any given time. A workman's post-injury earnings is evidence which, depending upon the circumstances of an individual case, may be of great, little, or no importance in determining loss of earning capacity. A person whose physical and mental capacities have been impaired not at all by an injury may voluntarily choose to enter an occupation which provides less compensation than his pre-injury occupation. Likewise, a person with almost total physical disability may find a post-injury occupation not involving physical effort which pays him substantially more than his pre-injury occupation  yet such a man is severely disabled in terms of ability to obtain and hold gainful employment in the broad field of general industrial occupations.    Of course, a worker is entitled to medical expenses under ORS 656.245 without a showing of worsening of his underlying condition. The entitlement to services under ORS 656.245 is not tied to a worsening but requires only that the need for medical services be a result of the injury. We now turn to claimant's contentions that a claim for worsening may not be extinguished by the five-year limitation if the claimant requires only medical treatment within the five years and, after the five years expires, the medical treatment itself causes the claimant's condition to worsen, resulting in loss of earning capacity. Claimant asserts that the worsening statute, ORS 656.273, specifically includes medical services within its provisions. Thus, he contends that a worker is not left solely to the remedy of lifetime medical services provided by ORS 656.245. If a worker requires medical services within a five-year period, the worker may opt to proceed under ORS 656.245 or 656.273. Claimant contends that the option to proceed under the worsening statute is important because medical treatment may require time off from work or time in an institution that occurs after the five-year aggravation period expires and yet is directly attributable to the original injury. Further, medical treatment may not improve the claimant's condition and may in fact worsen it, causing increased impairment of earning capacity. Claimant sets forth the following hypothetical example in his petition for review:    Assume that a worker has been told by a doctor on the 30th day of the 4th year and 11th month that surgery is necessary to correct a condition related to the compensable injury. On that day the doctor files a medical report with the carrier or the claimant's attorney files [a worsening claim], thereby protecting the claimant's [worsening claim] rights. However, since surgery will not be performed until after the expiration of the [worsening claim] period, it cannot be determined within the five-year period whether or not the claimant's condition will be improved or worsened at the time the worker files the [worsening] claim. Nor, at this point, can the worker always show a diminished earning capacity. Nonetheless, the claimant is entitled to have the claim reopened, the time loss paid, and is also entitled to appeal a subsequent determination order, if appropriate. It is not until such time as the claimant is medically stationary that his disability can be then rated. Moreover, the claimant's condition may deteriorate following the filing of the [worsening] claim and before recommended medical treatment is performed.    These contentions made by claimant are interesting but not applicable to the facts in this case. Anything we would say on those subjects would be dicta. The Court of Appeals found that the worker failed to prove that he is less able to work now than before the alleged worsening or that in any way has he suffered a greater loss of earning capacity. No worsening occurred after the five-year period expired because of medical treatment or otherwise. [2] The petition for reconsideration is allowed, and the previous opinion is withdrawn and superseded. The Court of Appeals is affirmed.