The opinion
36 April 29, 2026 No. 335
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
STATE OF OREGON
In the Matter of the Compensation of Mark S. Mooney,
Claimant.
Mark S. MOONEY,
Petitioner,
v.
LEGACY HEALTH,
Respondent.
Workers’ Compensation Board
2102029;
A182837
Argued and submitted May 21, 2025.
Robert Adian Martin argued the cause for petitioner. On
the briefs was Julene M. Quinn.
Rebecca Watkins argued the cause for respondent. Also
on the brief were Daisha Barnes and SBH Legal.
Before Aoyagi, Presiding Judge, Egan, Judge, and Joyce,
Judge.
EGAN, J.
Affirmed.
Cite as 349 Or App 36 (2026) 37
EGAN, J.
Claimant seeks review of an order of the Workers’
Compensation Board that upheld employer’s denial of his
previously accepted combined condition consisting of an
accepted work-related C7 radiculopathy injury and a pre-
existing cervical condition involving a spinal fusion and
Brown-Sequard Syndrome. Reviewing the board’s order for
substantial evidence and errors of law, ORS 183.482(8)(a),
(c), we affirm.
Claimant, who worked for employer as a nurse,
sustained a work-related injury while moving a patient.
Employer accepted a claim for disabling C7 radiculopathy,
for which claimant had surgery. Claimant has a history of
cervical fusion from a childhood injury, with accompany-
ing Brown-Sequard Syndrome. Subsequent to employer’s
acceptance of the C7 radiculopathy and the surgery, med-
ical evidence indicated that claimant’s accepted C7 radicu-
lopathy had combined with claimant’s preexisting cervical
conditions to cause or prolong disability or claimant’s need
for treatment of the C7 radiculopathy, but that the surgery
had resolved claimant’s C7 radiculopathy. Physicians opined
that, subsequent to surgery, claimant’s C7 radiculopathy
was no longer the major contributing cause of claimant’s
disability or need for treatment of the combined condition.
On May 5, 2021, employer modified its acceptance
to also accept a combined condition of claimant’s accepted
C7 radiculopathy and claimant’s preexisting cervical con-
ditions.1 The following day, May 6, 2021, employer issued a
denial of the combined condition, asserting that the other-
wise compensable work injury had ceased to be the major
contributing cause of the combined condition. See ORS
656.262(7)(b) (“Once a worker’s claim has been accepted,
the insurer or self-insured employer must issue a written
1
The amended notice of acceptance stated:
“Your claim was previously accepted for disabling C7 radiculopathy. Medical
evidence indicates the C7 radiculopathy combined with a preexisting C2
through C6 laminectomy and posterior fusion, Brown-Sequard Syndrome,
and cervical spondylosis C6-7. We therefore amend the scope of the accep-
tance to include disabling C7 radiculopathy combined with a preexisting C2
through C6 laminectomy and posterior fusion, Brown-Sequard Syndrome,
and cervical spondylosis at C6-7, effective November 6, 2019.”
38 Mooney v. Legacy Health
denial to the worker when the accepted injury is no longer
the major contributing cause of the worker’s combined con-
dition before the claim may be closed.”).
ORS 656.268(1) provides that a claim may be closed
when:
“(a) The worker has become medically stationary and
there is sufficient information to determine permanent dis-
ability. * * *
“(b) The accepted injury is no longer the major contrib-
uting cause of the worker’s combined or consequential con-
dition or conditions pursuant to ORS 656.005(7). When the
claim is closed because the accepted injury is no longer the
major contributing cause of the worker’s combined or con-
sequential condition or conditions, and there is sufficient
information to determine permanent disability, the likely
permanent disability that would have been due to the cur-
rent accepted condition shall be estimated.”
When the medical evidence indicated that claimant’s C7
radiculopathy was medically stationary and was no longer the
major contributing cause of claimant’s combined condition,
employer issued a notice of closure, awarding claimant 19
percent whole person impairment and work disability for the
accepted C7 radiculopathy. The notice of closure became final.
Claimant challenged the denial of the combined
condition. In proceedings before an administrative law judge
(ALJ) and the board, claimant argued that the award of
permanent disability on the accepted C7 radiculopathy was
inconsistent with employer’s outright denial of the combined
condition. Claimant contended that the award of disability
on the accepted C7 radiculopathy showed that the accepted
claim was still the major contributing cause of claimant’s
disability resulting from the combined condition. Claimant
further argued that the closure of the accepted C7 radicu-
lopathy claim constituted a final, unchallenged adjudication
on the ongoing compensability of the combined condition.
Both the ALJ and the board rejected those arguments, con-
cluding that the medical evidence established that claim-
ant’s accepted C7 radiculopathy was no longer the major
contributing cause of the disability or need for treatment
of the combined condition and that the combined condition
Cite as 349 Or App 36 (2026) 39
claim was thus properly denied. As explained below, we also
reject claimant’s arguments.
Generally, a worker seeking benefits for an injury
has the burden to prove that the claimed condition exists
and that the work injury is a material contributing cause of
the disability and need for treatment. See SAIF v. Sprague,
346 Or 661, 663-64, 217 P3d 644 (2009) (discussing claim-
ant’s burden). ORS 656.005(7)(a); ORS 656.266(1); ORS
656.245(1)(a). In the “combined condition” context, however,
ORS 656.005(7)(a)(B) provides:
“If an otherwise compensable injury combines at any time
with a preexisting condition to cause or prolong disability
or a need for treatment, the combined condition is compen-
sable only if, so long as and to the extent that the other-
wise compensable injury is the major contributing cause of
the disability of the combined condition or the major con-
tributing cause of the need for treatment of the combined
condition.”
Thus, a combined condition is subject to the major contribut-
ing cause standard of proof. That means that the combined
condition is compensable only if the “otherwise compensable
injury” is the major contributing cause of the disability of
the combined condition or the need for treatment of the com-
bined condition.
Further, in the combined condition context, the bur-
den of proof is also altered. Generally, the burden to prove
the compensability of an injury or disease is on the claim-
ant. ORS 656.266(1) provides:
“The burden of proving that an injury or occupational dis-
ease is compensable and of proving the nature and extent
of any disability resulting therefrom is upon the worker.”
But in the context of a combined condition claim, ORS
656.266(2) provides:
“Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, for the
purpose of combined condition injury claims under ORS
656.005 (7)(a)(B) only:
“(a) Once the worker establishes an otherwise compen-
sable injury, the employer shall bear the burden of proof to
establish the otherwise compensable injury is not, or is no
40 Mooney v. Legacy Health
longer, the major contributing cause of the disability of the
combined condition or the major contributing cause of the
need for treatment of the combined condition.”
Thus, when either party has established the existence of a
combined condition, and the claimant establishes an “other-
wise compensable injury,” an employer seeking to disprove the
compensability of the combined condition has the burden to
prove that the otherwise compensable injury “is not, or is no
longer, the major contributing cause of the disability of the
combined condition or the major contributing cause of the need
for treatment of the combined condition.” ORS 656.266(2)(a).
Here, employer initially accepted a claim for C7
radiculopathy, which subsequently, in the context of the
combined condition claim, was the “otherwise compensa-
ble injury.” Separately, employer also accepted a “combined
condition” of the “otherwise compensable injury” (claimant’s
accepted C7 radiculopathy) and claimant’s preexisting cervi-
cal conditions. Then, based on medical evidence that claim-
ant’s accepted C7 radiculopathy was no longer the major
contributing cause of claimant’s disability or need for treat-
ment of the combined condition, employer denied the com-
bined condition. Employer then issued a notice of closure on
the accepted C7 radiculopathy, awarding disability benefits
that the medical record reflects were 100 percent attribut-
able to the accepted C7 radiculopathy. Claimant argues that
the denial of the combined condition was improper, because
the record does not reflect consideration of whether the dis-
ability that employer awarded in the notice of closure for the
C7 radiculopathy was attributable to claimant’s combined
condition. Claimant states in his brief:
“In this case, claimant was awarded permanent disability
for the accepted C7 radiculopathy at closure and after the
denial of the combined condition issued. The board refused
to consider that award of permanent disability when per-
forming the weighing required to determine whether the
C7 radiculopathy continued to be the major contributing
cause of the disability of the combined condition. Instead,
the board relied on medical evidence that determined the
C7 radiculopathy was resolved and no longer symptomatic,
which meets the test for the need for treatment of the com-
bined condition, but fails to consider the major contributing
cause of the disability of the combined condition.”
Cite as 349 Or App 36 (2026) 41
As best we understand claimant’s argument, it is
that the board erred in failing to consider, in evaluating the
denial of the combined condition, the benefits awarded in
the notice of closure for disability on the accepted C7 radic-
ulopathy. According to claimant, when employer calculated
claimant’s loss of range of motion, it apportioned the award
as a combined condition. Thus, claimant’s argument goes,
employer admitted that the work injury remained the major
contributing cause of the combined condition.
That argument is not correct. Although employer
issued an acceptance of a combined condition including
the C7 radiculopathy, before employer closed the claim,
employer denied the combined condition. In order to deny
the combined condition, employer had the burden to prove
that the otherwise compensable condition was no longer the
major contributing cause of the disability or need for treat-
ment of the combined condition. ORS 656.266(2). Employer
met that burden. Thus, having denied the combined condi-
tion, employer was entitled to apportion benefits between
the accepted condition and the denied combined condition,
Caren v. Providence Health System Oregon, 365 Or 466, 486,
446 P3d 67 (2019), and to pay benefits only for the impair-
ment related to the accepted condition. The notice of clo-
sure reflects that employer did that—it apportioned ben-
efits for claimant’s loss of range of motion so as to award
only those benefits for loss of range of motion attributable to
the accepted C7 radiculopathy, not the combined condition.
Thus, there was no inconsistency between the notice of clo-
sure’s award of disability benefits for the C7 radiculopathy
and the previous denial of the combined condition, and the
board did not err in declining to take the apportionment
into account in addressing claimant’s challenge to the com-
bined condition denial.
Affirmed.