A worker petitioned the Oregon Court of Appeals to have his shoulder condition be classified as a compensable occupational disease and an accidental injury after a Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that it should be considered a compensable occupational disease alone. The court upheld the earlier decision.

Jeffrey Miller was a maintenance worker for apartment buildings, his employer is insured by SAIF. His previous employment as an apprentice and journeyman sheet-metal worker had him performing overhead work between 70 and 80 percent of his time, and he did that for three to four years.

He was locking an apartment door one day and felt a pop and pain in his right shoulder. He reported feeling soreness in his shoulder for a few weeks before this but otherwise did not have shoulder impairment. An MRI showed full thickness tears in his rotator cuff tendons. He started physical therapy and was recommended to undergo rotator cuff surgery.

His claim for an accidental-injury claim for a right shoulder injury was denied by SAIF, and a subsequent occupational-disease claim six months later was also denied. He requested a hearing before an administrative law judge.

SAIF argued that he had a preexisting arthritic shoulder condition, and that the incident at work was not the major contributing cause to his condition or the treatment he received for it. Miller utilized testimony from Dr. Puziss who said that the door-lock incident had caused acute tears that added to pre-existing partial tears caused by occupationally related overuse of his shoulder. His testimony argued that the degeneration of Miller’s rotator-cuff and partial tearing were consistent with his past work activities as a sheet-metal worker and his duties as a maintenance worker were also capable of contributing to and worsening existing partial tears, enough to result in a full-thickness tear. The ALJ determined that the underlying degeneration of his shoulder qualified as an occupational disease and determined that the lock incident qualified as a compensable injury claim, which SAIF appealed.

The board also determined his condition was a compensable occupational disease because his employment activities could be established as the major contributing cause of his shoulder condition. His shoulder condition gradually developed because of a series of occurrences and the lock incident happened to be the last one in this series. They reversed the decision finding his injury claim compensable. His need for treatment was not caused by an accidental injury but rather repetitive trauma.

Read the case here.