to challenge the medical arbiter’s report and to provide further information respecting her own condition, including offering her own affidavit to the department. She did not attempt to correct the record herself, nor did she request the department to exercise its authority either to subpoena the medical arbiter or to ask the medical arbiter to clarify his report. She cannot now successfully complain that due process somehow requires that she be allowed to do at hearing what she did not attempt to do during reconsideration. One final point merits discussion. None of the claimants has seriously argued in the briefs that he or she was not required to exhaust administrative remedies because exhaustion would have been futile. See Nutbrown v. Munn, 311 Or 328, 347-48, 811 P2d 131 (1991) (<HOLDING>). Neither are we aware of anything in the
recognizing notion of futility of exhaustion in case of implacable hostility of administrative forum recognizing the futility exception to the tribal exhaustion rule recognizing futility exception in context of  2241 petition recognizing that a plaintiff could present evidence of futility recognizing futility exception to doctrine of exhaustion where agency was powerless to grant relief sought