An Update on Standards for Compensability for Preexisting Conditions In Oregon Post-Barnes
In 2025, the Barnes decision shook up the workers’ compensation standards when the Oregon Court of Appeals held that a pre-existing condition that is exacerbated by a work injury can be compensable, but only if the work injury is the major contributing cause of a pathological worsening of the pre-existing condition. Barnes v. Cache Electric, 339 Or App 371 (2025).
In Barnes, the claimant suffered a head injury when a plexiglass window hatch struck him, resulting in a concussion and neck pain. The carrier processed a combined condition of a cervical strain/sprain with preexisting osteoarthritis of the cervical spine, subsequently issuing a “ceases denial” asserting that the work injury was not the major contributing cause of the claimant’s disability or need for treatment. Following a request for acceptance of new/omitted conditions, the carrier denied the request for “cervical spondylosis.” Claimant challenged both the partial denial of “cervical spondylosis” and the current combined condition denial. He argued that the work injury caused his previously asymptomatic spondylosis to become symptomatic and require treatment, which he contended made the spondylosis compensable as an independent condition rather than only as part of a combined condition.
The Court of Appeals rejected that argument. Relying on Schleiss v. SAIF, 354 Or 637 (2013), the court explained that a preexisting condition aggravated by a work injury is compensable as its own condition only when the injury is the major contributing cause of a pathological worsening of the underlying disease. Because the medical evidence did not establish that the work injury was the major cause of any pathological worsening of the claimant’s cervical spondylosis, the condition was not compensable as a standalone claim.
We have continued to watch the application of Barnes develop in the recent Board decision, Cynthia Reynolds, 78 Van Natta 56 (2026). The worker was injured and the claim was accepted thoracic, cervical and lumbar strains. The worker requested acceptance of lumbar multilevel degenerative disc disease, lumbar facet arthropathy, anterolisthesis of L5 on S1 and cervical spondylosis as new or omitted conditions. The employer denied the requested new or omitted medical conditions.
The worker argued that the degenerative disc disease and spondylosis were “made symptomatic” by the injury as such were compensable under the material cause standard. The ALJ found the record persuasively established the compensability of the new or omitted condition claims under the material contributing cause standard and set aside the employer’s denial. The employer timely appealed this decision.
Barnes v Cache Valley issued while Reynolds appeal was on appeal. In a split decision, the Board agreed the major contributing cause of a pathological worsening standard applied to the new or omitted condition request for acceptance of the preexisting conditions under the claim. Finding the medical record did not contain persuasive evidence establishing that the work injury was the major contributing cause of a pathological worsening of the preexisting condition, the Board revered the portion of the ALJ’s order that set aside the employer’s denial.
The dissent disagreed with the majority’s conclusion that Barnes applies to this new or omitted condition compensability case. Member Ousey indicated he believes that Barnes applies only to medical services disputes. The worker has appealed Reynolds to the Court of Appeals.
Assessing compensability with a preexisting condition is a complex and currently evolving area of law and often requires the assistance of a workers’ compensation attorney. If you have any questions about whether a preexisting condition is compensable, you can contact me at or at (971) 369-5230.
Posted by Sierra Sawyer.
