SAIF v. ROAM, 109 Or. App. 169 (1991)

818 P.2d 962

In the Matter of the Compensation of Daniel P. Roam, Claimant.SAIF CORPORATION and Cape Arago Lumber Co., Petitioners, v. Daniel P. ROAM, Respondent.

89-03055; CA A66917Oregon Court of Appeals.Argued and submitted July 26, 1991.
Affirmed October 9, 1991.

Judicial Review from Workers’ Compensation Board.

Arden J. Olson, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.

Donald M. Hooton, Eugene, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Jon C. Correll and Malagon, Moore Johnson, Eugene.

Page 170

Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Rossman and De Muniz, Judges.

BUTTLER, P.J.

Affirmed.

Page 171

BUTTLER, P.J.

Employer seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board holding that it is responsible for payment of certain medical expenses necessary for the treatment of claimant’s noncompensable psychiatric problem.

Claimant, who has a pre-existing psychiatric problem, including drug dependency, sustained a compensable elbow injury in 1977, requiring several surgeries over a period of years. In 1987, he claimed that those surgeries had worsened his psychiatric condition. He and employer entered into a disputed claim settlement by which claimant agreed that his psychiatric condition was not compensable. As part of the settlement, employer paid claimant $7,000. One year later, claimant’s treating physician recommended further surgery on his elbow but stated that claimant must first be treated for his psychiatric problem. Although employer concedes that the surgery would be compensable, it denied the claim for treatment of the psychiatric condition, contending that the disputed claim settlement had absolved it of all responsibility for that problem. The referee held that employer must pay for the treatment, and the Board affirmed.

Claimant is entitled to treatment reasonably necessary to permit treatment of the compensable elbow condition. ORS 656.245; Van Blokland v. Oregon Health Sciences University, 87 Or. App. 694, 743 P.2d 1136 (1987); see also Williams v. Gates, McDonald Co., 300 Or. 278, 709 Or. 712 (1985). The evidence is uncontroverted that treatment of the non-compensable psychiatric condition is necessary as a prelude to treatment of the compensable elbow injury. Accordingly, the Board correctly held that employer must pay for the necessary psychiatric treatment.

Affirmed.

Page 172