Court Opinion

ID: 9547125
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:42:01.222071+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:17:21.750059
License: Public Domain

*89WARREN, J.,
dissenting.
I agree with the majority that the award contemplated and compensated claimant for future periods of disability. However, I do not understand the Supreme Court’s opinion to hold that, whenever a claimant experiences time loss or becomes an inpatient in a hospital, he has established an aggravation, and I therefore dissent.
The Supreme Court posed the question as whether an award which contemplates future flareups will preclude an additional award under ORS 656.273 “for such flareups even if they produce greater disability than that for which the original award was made.” Gwynn v. SAIF, 304 Or 345, 347, 745 P2d 775 (1987). The court then reaffirmed the rule that a claimant must show that his condition has worsened since the last arrangement of compensation in order to obtain additional benefits under ORS 656.273. 304 Or at 348. As the court emphasized, a mere “waxing,” i.e., increase, of symptoms, whether or not anticipated, is not a worsening sufficient to satisfy the requirements for a claim under ORS 656.273, unless it produces greater disability. 304 Or at 352. I assume that the question of whether there is greater disability is determined by comparing the worker’s present condition with his condition at the time of the last arrangement of compensation. Gywnn v. SAIF, 84 Or App 67, 71, 733 P2d 895 (1987). The Supreme Court’s opinion appears to say that that is the relevant comparison. Because of the court’s repeated emphasis on “worsening” and “greater disability,” I would conclude that proof of disability greater than that which existed on the date of the last arrangement of compensation is required to sustain an aggravation claim.
If, for example, a claimant experiences disability which leads to time loss after the last arrangement of compensation, but the last award contemplated that the claimant would have that disability in the normal course of the condition which occasioned the last award, he would not be entitled to additional benefits for temporary total disability, because his disability is no greater than that for which he has already been compensated. That is the case here.
The evidence is that the work leading to the present claim exceeded the limitations placed on claimant at the time *90of the last award. It was anticipated at that time that he would experience symptoms in the future if he were to exceed those limitations. As the majority found, the last award anticipated that permanent frailty in claimant. The evidence is that he has a permanent disability that becomes symptomatic whenever he does heavy lifting. That disability is not greater than that anticipated at the time of the last award.
I would hold, therefore, that claimant’s condition has not worsened so as to entitle him to benefits under ORS 656.273. Rather, he is suffering from a permanent aspect of his disability, for which he has been previously compensated. I would affirm.