
    Argued and submitted October 10,
    reversed November 26, 1979
    HAMMONS, Respondent, v. PERINI CORPORATION, Petitioner.
    
    (No. 77-6333, CA 14125)
    602 P2d 1094
    Elizabeth K. Reeve, Portland, argued the cause for itioner. On the brief were L. Edward Robbins, Ridg-7 K. Foley, Jr., Michael D. Hoffman and Souther, ulding, Kinsey, Williamson & Schwabe, Portland.
    
      Paul S. Wiggins, Jr., Forest Grove, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Caldwell & Higgins, Forest Grove.
    Befdre Tanzer, Presiding Judge, and Thornton and Campbell, Judges.
    TANZER, P. J.
   TANZER, P. J.

This is a claim for compensation for a íeumothorax (collapsed lung) and resulting disease hich occurred while the claimant was working as a pe construction supervisor. He had knocked out a uple of 2 x 4’s with a sledge hammer shortly before e collapse. Several years before, he had San Joaquin alley fever, a lung disease, and had declined recom-ended surgery. Consequently, a blister grew on the ng. The mechanics of his present injury are that the ister broke, allowing the air to leak from his right ng, thus causing the collapse. The referee found the jury to be noncompensable; the Workers’ Compensa->n Board found it was. The employer appeals. The Lestion is whether the injury is job related.

There are two treating physicians and one consul-nt. The treating physicians conclude that the injury job related. The consultant concludes that it is not. xe referee believed the consultant and denied bene-;s. The Board, reversing the referee and awarding nefits, found the treating physicians more credible cause they had observed the patient.

On de novo review, we find that the consultant is r more persuasive than the treating physicians. The emise of the Board that the treating physicians are )re credible than consultants has no application in is case. There is nothing about the nature of the ¡atment which would enhance one’s diagnostic abili-by virtue of having examined and treated the claim-t. This case involves expert analysis rather than pert external observation. Hence, we do not give scial credit to the treating physicians in this case.

The consultant, Dr. Tuhy, surveyed the records of imant’s prior treatment and his x-rays. He reviewed 5 literature in the field and explained the mechanics the injury in detail. Because most such blister blow-fcs are unrelated to activity (indeed, they happen ist commonly while the person is asleep) he con-Lded, consistent with the literature, that such blowouts are unrelated to exertion. He stated that the job exertion may have made this blow-out more painful, but it did not cause the injury itself or increase the resulting impairment.

Claimant’s physicians simply state their conclusions without explanation. Dr. Tawakol’s conclusion, in his words, was:

"It was felt that Mr. Hammons, because of his work and physical activity, there might be some direct relationship between work and the pneumothorax.”

In the next paragraph of Dr. Tawakol’s short report, however, he stated:

"* * * jje ha(j emphysema on top of the San Joaquin Valley fever and the emphysema was a direct cause and relationship between that and the right pneumothorax.”

He then combined both ideas:

"* * * I feel that there is some relationship between his emphysema and the right pneumothorax and is probably work-related. * * *”

Dr. Isaak, an osteopathic physician, concludes without further explanation:

"* * * I would assume that Mr. Hammons work, which was rather physical, could have caused a direct relationship to his pneumothorax. * * *”

Dr. Isaak goes on to say that he understands that claimant had San Joaquin Valley fever in the past and that there may have been a relationship between that disease and the present pneumothorax.

In balance, we find Dr. Tuhy’s analysis to be more reasoned and knowledgeable and, hence, more persuasive. We conclude that the injury was not the result of the claimant’s job.

Reversed.  