W.C. No. 4-608-758.Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
January 3, 2006.
FINAL ORDER
The claimant seeks review of an order dated August 30, 2005, of Administrative Law Judge Mattoon (ALJ) that determined the claimant had not met her burden to prove the causal connection between the industrial injury and the need for a total knee replacement. We affirm.
The claimant suffered a tear of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) of the right knee while playing volleyball in 1998. The claimant re-injured her right knee in an admitted injury while working for the employer on September 20, 2002. This bears the W.C. No. 4-592-890. Following this work related accident, the claimant saw Dr. Hendrick, who diagnosed the right knee problem as a torn medial meniscus and a reabsorbed ACL, probably from the 1998 injury. Dr. Hendrick performed two surgeries on the claimant’s right knee. The claimant continued to have problems with her right knee.
In the claim here, the claimant tripped on carpet at work and twisted her right knee on March 3, 2004. She did not fall or strike the knee. A hearing was held on July 13, 2004 before ALJ Stuber, who ordered the respondents to provide reasonable, necessary and related medical benefits for the March 3, 2004 right knee injury.
The claimant underwent right knee surgery by Dr. Houseworth on September 13, 2004. The claimant continued to suffer from right knee pain. Dr. Houseworth referred the claimant for evaluation for a possible total knee replacement. The claimant saw Dr. Royce, who diagnosed right knee arthrosis, and recommended a total knee replacement.
The claimant was examined by Dr. Hewitt, who noted that the recommended total knee replacement was due to degenerative arthritis and not related to any work-related injury. The ALJ found the opinion of Dr. Hewitt’s persuasive and supported by the fact that the claimant was having substantial pain and considering surgery approximately three weeks before the injury in this case occurred. Based on these findings, the ALJ found that the claimant did not present sufficient persuasive evidence to demonstrate that the need for the total right knee replacement is related to the March 3, 2004 injury.
In her petition to review, the claimant argues that the ALJ misapplied the burden of proof, disregarded evidence from Dr. Royce and Dr. Houseworth, that the conclusions of the ALJ are not supported by the findings, and the order is at variance with established cases concerning the extent of medical benefits in the state of Colorado. We disagree on all the issues raised by the claimant.
The claimant has not filed a brief in support of her petition to review. Therefore, the effectiveness of our review is severely limited. Ortiz v. Industrial Commission, 734 P.2d 642
(Colo.App. 1986).
Under § 8-42-101(1)(a), C.R.S. 2005, the respondents are liable for medical treatment which is reasonable and necessary to cure or relieve the effects of the industrial injury. Snyder v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 942 P.2d 1337 (Colo.App. 1997). However, as the ALJ determined, it is the claimant’s burden to prove a causal connection between the industrial injury and the need for medical treatment. City of Durango v. Dunagan, 939 P.2d 496 (Colo.App. 1997). It is the ALJ’s sole prerogative to assess the sufficiency and probative value of the evidence to determine whether the claimant has met her burden of proof Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 989 P.2d 251 (Colo.App. 1999). We must uphold the ALJ’s factual determinations if supported by substantial evidence in the record. Section 8-43-301(8), C.R.S. 2005; Ackerman v. Hilton’s Mechanical Men, Inc., 914 P.2d 524 (Colo.App. 1996).
Contrary to the claimant’s assertions, the ALJ did consider evidence from Dr. Royce and Dr. Houseworth in her decision. The ALJ specifically took note of evidence from both of these physicians. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order, ¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20.
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 also supported by substantial evidence in Dr. Hewitt’s written report (Respondent’s Hearing Exhibit S). The findings support the conclusion that the claimant failed to prove entitlement to payment for the requested total knee replacement. Consequently, the ALJ’s findings are binding on review. Moreover, the ALJ correctly applied the law. Accordingly, we perceive no basis on which to disturb the ALJ’s order.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated August 30, 2005, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
____________________________________ Dona Halsey
____________________________________ Tom Schrant
Inez Zaragoza, Colorado Springs, CO, Matrix Logistics, Fountain, CO, Travelers Insurance Company, c/o ESIS, Portland, OR, Dale W. Pedersen, Esq., Colorado Springs, CO, (For Claimant).
Michael J. Barbo, Esq., Greenwood Village, CO, (For Respondents).