In the Matter of the Compensation of Shawn C. Ryan, Claimant

Claimant seeks reversal and remand of the Workers'

Compensation Board's determination that employer met its

burden under ORS 656.266(2)(a) to prove that claimant's

"otherwise compensable injury” is not the major contributing

cause of his disability or need for treatment. Claimant

argues that the board's decision is not supported by substantial

evidence or substantial reason. See ORS 183.482(8)(c).

We disagree and, therefore, affirm.

As we have explained, "[i]n assessing the major contributing

cause of a combined condition, ORS 656.005(7)(a)(B)

requires 'a comparison of the relative contribution of the

preexisting disease or condition and the work-related incident.'

” Cummings v. SAIF, 197 Or App 312, 318, 105 P3d

875 (2005) (quoting Dietz v. Ramuda, 130 Or App 397, 401,

882 P2d 618 (1994), rev dismissed, 321 Or 416 (1995)). Here,

the board credited the opinions of employer's three medical

experts, all of whom opined that claimant suffered from

a preexisting degenerative disc disease that was the major

contributing cause of the L4-5 disc herniation for which

claimant required surgery following his work injury.

Claimant contends, however, that those opinions

do not constitute substantial evidence, and that the board's

decision to credit them lacks substantial reason, because

employer's experts reviewed only an MRI report to evaluate

claimant's preinjury condition. Claimant relies on our decision

in Cummings, in which we remanded for the board to

address an "apparent deficiency” in the opinion of an expert

who "assumed” and "suspected” that the claimant had a preexisting

condition but did not review any preinjury records

before offering an opinion that the claimant's preexisting

condition was the major cause of his combined condition. 197

Or App at 319.

Here, unlike in Cummings, employer's experts did

not simply speculate about claimant's preexisting condition.

The preinjury MRI report documents the nature of claimant's

preexisting degenerative low back changes, including

at the level of his eventual disc herniation. Although claimant

argues that the experts needed to review the actual diagnostic

films or preinjury chart notes to "reliably” evaluate

Cite as 268 Or App 669 (2015) 671

the extent of claimant's preexisting condition, neither claimant's

expert nor any other evidence in the record suggests

that the MRI films materially differed from the MRI report

or that the MRI findings were inaccurate. On the record in

this case, substantial reason supports the board's finding

that the opinions of employer's experts are more persuasive

than those of claimant's expert.

Affirmed.