Oregon: Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation Unit is not a “Prosthetic Device”

In a divided decision, the Court of Appeals of Oregon held that a transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) unit was not a “prosthetic device” under ORS 656.245(1)(c)(D). The majority added that the attending physician’s treatment of claimant’s compensable and medically stationary “arachnoiditis” was palliative, rather than curative, and as such was not compensable because the evidence had not established that the services were necessary to allow claimant to continue employment. Claimant here had told his physician that he was not working. The court stressed that once a worker’s condition has become medically stationary, only those medical services listed in ORS 656.245(1)(c) are compensable; palliative care is not so listed. The majority added that the TENS unit was a durable medical that could be reused by different patients. A prosthetic, on the other hand, was a device that substituted for a missing body part or aided performance of a natural function. By implication, a prosthetic was personal to the individual and was not an item that could be reused by different patients.

Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is the co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis).

LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance.

See Landis v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp., 2016 Ore. App. LEXIS 1320 (Oct. 19, 2016)

See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, §§ 94.03, 94.04.

Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law