W.C. No. 4-3449-298Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
October 11, 2002
FINAL ORDER
The claimant seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Muramoto (ALJ) which denied and dismissed the claim for workers’ compensation benefits. We affirm.
The claimant alleged he developed polyarthritis as a result of his seasonal work for the respondent. The ALJ’s findings may be summarized as follows. In July 1997 the claimant suffered a compensable injury to his left ankle while working as a seasonal laborer for the respondent. He was placed at maximum medical improvement in June 1998 with no permanent restrictions. The claimant then returned to work for the respondent as a water truck driver. On August 4, 1998, the claimant suffered a temporary aggravation of his left ankle injury. He missed no time from work as a result of the aggravation. The claimant was then off work for a non-occupational surgery between August 6 and August 24, 1998. The claimant left work again on September 9, 1998, when he experienced tremors, chills and nausea not caused by the industrial injury.
The claimant was subsequently examined by Dr. Heare who noted the claimant is an obese, insulin-dependent diabetic. Dr. Heare diagnosed degenerative joint disease and polyarthritis “secondary to a long hard working history as well as his obesity.”
Dr. Shaw disagreed with the diagnosis of polyarthritis. He also opined the history of the claimant’s work exposures was inconsistent with the development of an occupational disease. Rather, Dr. Shaw opined that the probable cause of the claimant’s degenerative joint disease is “his age and body habitus.”
Crediting the opinions of Dr. Shaw and rejecting the contrary opinions of Dr. Heare, the ALJ determined there was no persuasive evidence to support the allegation of an occupational disease resulting in polyarthritis. Therefore, the ALJ denied and dismissed the claim for workers’ compensation benefits.
The claimant’s Petition to Review contains general allegations of error and the claimant has not filed a brief in support of the Petition to Review. Consequently, the effectiveness of our review is limited. See Ortiz v. Industrial Commission, 734 P.2d 642 (Colo.App. 1986).
To prove a compensable injury the claimant was required to prove that his condition was proximately caused an injury arising “out of and in the course of” his employment. Section 8-41-301(1)(c), C.R.S. 2002; Faulkner v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 12 P.3d 844 (Colo.App. 2000). Where the alleged injury is the result of a prolonged exposure occasioned by the nature of the employment and not a traumatic event, the alleged injury is an “occupational disease.” See Colorado Mental Health Institute v. Austill, 940 P.2d 1125 (Colo.App. 1997).
The question of whether the claimant has met his burden of proof is one of fact for determination by the ALJ. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 989 P.2d 251 (Colo.App. 1999). Consequently, we must uphold the ALJ’s determination if supported by substantial evidence of the record. Section 8-43-301(8), C.R.S. 2002. Under this standard, we must defer to the ALJ’s credibility determinations, her resolution of conflicts in the evidence, and her assessment of the sufficiency and probative weight of the evidence Arenas v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 8 P.3d 558 (Colo.App. 2000) Rockwell International v. Turnbull, 802 P.2d 1182 (Colo.App. 1990).
We have reviewed the record and the ALJ’s findings of fact. The ALJ’s findings are sufficient to permit appellate review, and the findings indicate that the ALJ resolved conflicts in the evidence based upon her credibility determinations. See Riddle v. Ampex Corp., 839 P.2d 489
(Colo.App. 1992).
The ALJ’s findings are supported by substantial evidence in the medical reports of Dr. Shaw. Moreover, the ALJ’s factual determinations support the conclusion that the claimant failed to prove he suffered an injury in the nature of an occupational disease. Therefore, the ALJ did not err in dismissing the claim.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated April 12, 2002, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
____________________________________ Kathy E. Dean
____________________________________ Robert M. Socolofsky
NOTICE
This Order is final unless an action to modify or vacate this Order is commenced in the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2 East 14th Avenue, Denver, CO 80203, by filing a petition for review with the Court, within twenty (20) days after the date this Order is mailed, pursuant to § 8-43-301(10) and § 8-43-307, C.R.S. 2001. The appealing party must serve a copy of the petition upon all other parties, including the Industrial Claim Appeals Office, which may be served by mail at 1515 Arapahoe, Tower 3, Suite 350, Denver, CO 80202.
Copies of this decision were mailed October 11, 2002 to the following parties:
Frank Barrientes, 2380 1st Ave., #7, Greeley, CO 80631
Michelle Raimer, Weld County Government, P. O. Box 758, Greeley, CO 80632
Norma Stimmler, County Technical Services, 1700 Broadway, #1512, Denver, CO 80290
Britton Morrell, Esq., 710 11th Ave., #203, Greeley, CO 80631 (For Claimant)
Patricia Jean Clisham, Esq., 1200 17th St., #1700, Denver, CO 80202 (For Respondent)
BY: _____A. Hurtado____