W.C. Nos. 4-012-396 4-148-383Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
December 6, 1995
FINAL ORDER
The claimant seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Friend (ALJ) which denied her claim for permanent total disability benefits. We affirm.
The claimant suffered two admitted industrial injuries during the course of her employment with the Denver Public Schools. On January 17, 1990 the claimant suffered an injury which primarily affected her left hand, and on February 5, 1992 the claimant suffered an injury which primarily affected her right foot and leg.
From conflicting medical and vocational evidence, the ALJ determined that the claimant remains capable of earning wages in other employment. In so doing, the ALJ found the opinions of Dr. Entin, Dr. Steinmetz, and vocational rehabilitation consultants Patrick M. Renfro and Elizabeth Mauer credible and persuasive. Specifically, the ALJ credited Dr. Steinmetz’ conclusion that the claimant’s movement was self-limiting behavior. Similarly, Dr. Entin reported that there are no physical findings to support the claimant’s subjective complaints, and that the claimant’s functional capacity evaluation was invalid due to self-limitation and secondary gain factors. Dr. Entin recommended that the claimant return to work as soon as possible. Furthermore, Ms. Mauer and Mr. Renfro concluded that the claimant is capable of earning wages. Therefore, the ALJ determined that the claimant is not permanently and totally disabled as defined in § 8-40-201(16.5), C.R.S. (1995 Cum. Supp.).
On review, the claimant contends that she also sustained a psychological injury which was diagnosed as depression, and argues that the depression has rendered her unable to engage in any gainful activity. The claimant contends that the opinions of Dr. Shukert and Dr. Martinez constitute the only evidence concerning the effect of the depression on her ability to work, and that the ALJ “ignored” this evidence. Therefore, the claimant argues that the record does not support the ALJ’s determination that the claimant is not permanently and totally disabled. We reject this argument.
The ALJ is not required to mention or discuss all the evidence in the record, but may refer only to the evidence he found persuasive and determinative of the disputed issues. General Cable Co. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 878 P.2d 118 (Colo.App. 1994). Consequently, the ALJ was not required to explicitly cite Dr. Shukert’s opinions before rejecting the evidence as unpersuasive. See Jefferson County Public Schools v. Dragoo, 765 P.2d 636 (Colo.App. 1988).
Further, the ALJ’s order indicates that he expressly considered Dr. Martinez’ opinion that the examining physicians did not understand that the claimant’s inconsistent functional capacity test results were due to the claimant’s recurrent depression. See Finding of Fact 13. The ALJ also explicitly recognized Dr. Martinez’ opinion that the claimant is unable to work. Therefore, the ALJ did not “ignore” the evidence concerning the claimant’s psychological disability. Cf. Hall v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 757 P.2d 1132 (Colo.App. 1988).
However, the ALJ did not, and was not required to credit Dr. Martinez’ opinions. See Colorado Springs Motors, Ltd. v. Industrial Commission, 165 Colo. 504, 441 P.2d 21 (1968); Casa Bonita Restaurant v. Industrial Commission, 624 P.2d 1340 (Colo.App. 1981) (even uncontroverted medical evidence is not binding on the ALJ). Consequently, we cannot say that the record compels a conclusion that the psychological component of the claimant’s industrial injuries renders her unable to “earn any wages.”
Instead, it is implicit in the findings that the ALJ was not persuaded that the claimant’s psychological disability, if any, precludes her from working. The ALJ’s determination is supported by the evidence he found credible and persuasive. Furthermore, we have no authority to substitute our judgment for that of the ALJ concerning the credibility of the witnesses, or the sufficiency and probative value of the evidence, and therefore, decline the claimant’s initiation to do so. Martinez v. Regional Transportation District, 832 P.2d 1060 (Colo.App. 1992).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated January 25, 1995, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
____________________________________ Kathy E. Dean
____________________________________ Bill Whitacre
NOTICE
This Order is final unless an action to modify or vacate this Order iscommenced in the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2 East 14th Avenue, Denver, CO80203, by filing a petition for review with the court, with service of acopy of the petition upon the Industrial Claim Appeals Office and allother parties, within twenty (20) days after the date this Order ismailed, pursuant to section 8-43-301(10) and 307, C.R.S. (1995 Cum.Supp.).
Copies of this decision were mailed December 6, 1995 to the following parties:
Josie Zamora, 2827 W. Irvington Pl., Denver, CO 80219
Denver, Public Schools, Attn: Celeste Jimenez, Workers’ Compensation Specialist, 900 Grant St., Denver, CO 80203
Colorado Compensation Insurance Authority, Attn: Legal Dept. (Interagency Mail)
Special Funds, Attn: Barbara Carter (Interagency Mail)
Robert M. Maes, Esq., 1610 Gaylord St., Denver, CO 80206
(For the Claimant)
Thomas M. Schrant, Esq., 3464 S. Willow St., Denver, CO 80231-4566
(For the Respondents)
Attorney General’s Office, Attn: Hyla Viorst, Esq., 1525 Sherman St., 5th Flr., Denver, CO 90203
(For SIF)
BY: _______________________