Appeal from Circuit Court, Washington County. Glen Hieber, Judge.
Thomas A. Huffman, Hillsboro, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Huffman and Zenger, Hillsboro.
Dennis R. VavRosky, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were McMurry & Nichols, Portland.
Schwab, Chief Judge, and Langtry and Fort, Judges.
The claimant, having suffered a compensable injury, was given a permanent partial disability award of 32 degrees. Being dissatisfied with that award, and with the orders of the hearing officer, Workmen's Compensation Board and circuit court refusing to increase the award, he has appealed to this court.
His principal contentions are that all of the triers of fact below (1) failed to find as accident-related a condition which he first complained of two and one-half months after the accident, and (2) failed to allow him compensation for certain medical and hospital expenses which were related to the condition which they found was not compensable.
As to the first issue, we quote in pertinent part from the order of the Workmen's Compensation Board,*fn1 with which we agree:
"The claimant was 37 years of age on September 29, 1969 when he fell from a ladder to a sitting position on the floor. He was diagnosed as having a compression fracture of the D-12 vertebra which was treated conservatively without hospitalization with use of a brace and rest at home for a few weeks.
"Pursuant to ORS 656.268, the permanent disability was evaluated at 32 degrees or 10% of the maximum allowable for unscheduled injuries.
"One of the major issues arises from a condition which first manifested itself on December 13, 1969, over ten weeks following the accident. On that date he had eaten a large Chinese dinner topped with a glass of brandy when he experienced vomiting including blood. He was hospitalized for a few days and the tentative diagnosis was a
'probable recurrent duodenal ulcer.' These problems are hereafter referred to as 'epigastric.'
"There is no indication of need for further medical care for the back which healed, but with some minimal deformity. If the claimant's preexisting and recurrent epigastric problems are now materially related to the accident, there might be some justification for reopening the claim. The Board, however, concurs with the Hearing Officer and concludes from the weight of the ...