W.C. No. 4-287-472.Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
July 23, 2004.
FINAL ORDER
The pro se claimant seeks review of an or der of Administrative Law Judge Muramoto (ALJ) which denied a petition to reopen. We affirm.
The claimant sustained a compensable back injury in February 1996. In November 1996 the claimant was found to be at maximum medical improvement (MMI) by a Division-sponsored independent medical examination (DIME) physician. The DIME physician assigned an 18 percent whole person impairment rating based on reduced range of motion and specific disorders of the lumbar spine. Thereafter, the claim was apparently closed.
In September 2003 the claimant filed a petition to reopen based on worsened condition. The claimant relied primarily on the report of Dr. Ryan that the claimant was suffering from a lumbar facet syndrome caused by the 1996 injury.
However, the ALJ denied the petition to reopen finding that the claimant failed to prove that any worsening of his back condition and consequent need for treatment are causally related to the industrial injury. In support, the ALJ discredited the claimant’s testimony that, after reaching MMI, he has performed no work exceeding the permanent medical restrictions imposed after the 1996 injury. The ALJ also credited the report and testimony of Dr. Hughes that any worsening of the claimant’s condition represents an occupational disease sustained after the claimant reached MMI for the 1996 injury.
The claimant filed a petition to review citing general allegations of error concerning the sufficiency of the evidence, the sufficiency of the findings, and the ALJ’s application of the law. The claimant did not file a brief in support of his petition. Thus, the effectiveness of our review is very limited. See Cordova v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 55 P.3d 186, 190-191 (Colo.App. 2002) (party must advance sufficient legal argument to indicate basis of claims for relief).
The claimant had the burden of proof to establish a worsened condition causally related to the underlying industrial injury. The question of whether the claimant met the burden of proof is one of fact for determination by the ALJ. Cordova v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, supra.
Because the issue is factual in nature, we must uphold the ALJ’s resolution if supported by substantial evidence in the record. Section 8-43-301 (8), C.R.S. 2003. This standard of review requires us to defer to the ALJ’s resolution of conflicts in the evidence, credibility determinations, and plausible inferences drawn from the record. Further, we must accept the ALJ’s determinations concerning the weight and credibility to be assigned expert medical testimony. Cordova v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, supra. Where, as here, the claimant failed timely to procure a transcript, we must assume the ALJ’s findings concerning the testimony at the hearing are supported by substantial evidence. Nova v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 754 P.2d 800
(Colo.App. 1988).
Here, the ALJ’s order is fully supported by the testimony and reports of Dr. Hughes, and by the ALJ’s express finding that the claimant’s testimony was not credible. Further, the order reflects a correct application of the burden of proof. The mere fact that some evidence might have supported a different result provides no basis for appellate relief. Wilson v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 81 P.3d 1117
(Colo.App. 2003).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated January 13, 2004, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
______________________ David Cain
______________________ Robert M. Socolofsky
Jesus Soto, Denver, CO, Concrete Coring Company, St. Louis, MO, Mid-Century Insurance, c/o Farmers Insurance Exchange, Denver, CO, D. Clay Thornton, Esq., Denver, CO, (For Respondents).