Oregon WCB Confirms Initial Notice of Acceptance Does Not Set a “Theory of the Case”
What is the difference between an injury, a claim, and an accepted condition? The answer, frustratingly, is “it depends.” But the Oregon Workers’ Compensation Board recently issued a decision which at least provides some clarity as to whether one condition accepted in a claim dictates the types of other conditions which can be accepted.
Generally speaking, new workers’ compensation claims in Oregon are divided into injury and occupational disease claims. There are additional classifications, such as consequential conditions or worsened preexisting conditions, but these are essentially variations on the basic injury/occupational disease dichotomy. The criteria for determining whether a claim is an injury or occupational disease is simple, even if applying the standard is not always so. Conditions which arise suddenly are injuries, whereas conditions which arise over time are occupational diseases.
Frequently, litigation revolves around new or omitted conditions, which were not accepted in the Initial Notice of Acceptance. A question often arises: if a new condition is requested, does the classification (either injury or occupational disease) of the originally accepted condition control whether the new condition is an injury or occupational disease?
The Oregon Workers’ Compensation Board determined the original condition’s classification is not controlling. In Catherine Booth, 77 Van Natta 21 (2025), the Board held a new condition claim for arthritis was properly analyzed as an occupational disease, even though the initial claim for wrist conditions was accepted as an injury. In doing so, the Board relied on the longstanding rule that the development of the condition determines the classification, not the development of symptoms.
Claimant argued the initial acceptance set a “theory of the case,” by which all possible conditions in the claim would be judged. But the Board disagreed, and determined each condition must be analyzed separately, based on the simple test of whether the condition itself developed gradually or suddenly. A single event can materially cause a need for treatment for one condition which arose suddenly (making it an injury claim), while also materially impacting a second condition which arose gradually over time. The second condition is an occupational disease claim, and the worker would need to prove work conditions are the major cause of the condition.
This decision helpfully simplifies the process of assessing a new or omitted condition request. The surrounding context of the claim does not determine how the condition should be assessed, only the basic test of whether the condition developed suddenly or gradually.
Whether and how longstanding, degenerative conditions (such as arthritis) can be looped into injury claims has been a relevant inquiry at the Board and the appellate courts in recent years. The most obvious method by which arthritis might become part of a claim is through a combined condition process, but the Booth decision helps to clarify situations where the compensable injury claim (meaning the accepted injury conditions) does not necessarily combine with a preexisting condition, but the event causing the claim contributes to a symptomatic worsening of a preexisting condition. This decision is almost certainly not the last word on the issue, whether due to an appeal or due to new decisions which introduce additional nuances.
In the meantime, we at SBH are ready and able to answer any questions you may have regarding whether a condition should be considered an occupational disease or an injury. If you need to any further guidance, please feel free to contact me at 971-867-2718 or mbaker@sbhlegal.com.
Posted by Matthew Baker.
