W.C. No. 4-507-926Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
March 25, 2003
FINAL ORDER
The claimant seeks review of a Supplemental Order of Administrative Law Judge Friend (ALJ) which denied and dismissed the claim for workers’ compensation benefits. We affirm.
After the claimant filed a petition to review the ALJ’s initial order and the parties filed briefs, the ALJ entered the Supplemental Order on November 15, 2002. In the Supplemental Order, the ALJ found the claimant failed to prove a compensable injury caused by exposure to a chemical on May 6, 2001. In support of this decision, the ALJ credited the reports of Dr. Repsher and Dr. Lynch.
The claimant did not file a brief in support of the petition to review the Supplemental Order. Further, the petition to review contains only general allegations of error concerning the sufficiency of the evidence and the correctness of the ALJ’s legal conclusions. Therefore, the effectiveness of our review is limited.
The claimant was required to prove an injury or occupational disease proximately caused by an injury arising out of and in the course of employment. Section 8-41-301(1)(c), C.R.S. 2002. The question of whether the claimant proved the requisite causal relationship is one of fact for determination by the ALJ. Faulkner v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 12 P.3d 844 (Colo.App. 2000).
Because the issue is factual in nature, we must uphold the ALJ’s findings if supported by substantial evidence in the record. Section 8-43-301(8), C.R.S. 2002. This standard of review requires us to defer to the ALJ’s credibility determinations, resolution of conflicts in the evidence, and plausible inferences drawn from the record. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Industrial Claims Office, 989 P.d. 251 (Colo.App. 1999). The weight and credibility of expert medical opinion is matter within the discretion of the ALJ. Cordova v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 55 P.3d 186 (Colo.App. 2002).
The ALJ expressly credited the opinion of Dr. Repsher that the chemical to which the claimant was exposed was unlikely to have caused the alleged respiratory injury because the claimant did not also exhibit skin burns or damage to the mucosa of the eyes, nose and throat. Further, Dr. Repsher opined the aerosol form of the chemical is too large to penetrate the upper airway. (Repsher report, January 18, 2002). Dr. Repsher’s opinion was corroborated by Dr. Lynch. (Lynch report, August 3, 2001). Although the claimant presented conflicting evidence, including the reports of Dr. Matheis, determination of the weight to be accorded that evidence was a matter for the ALJ and affords no basis for appellate relief.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s Supplemental Order dated November 15, 2002, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
___________________________________ David Cain
___________________________________ Dona Halsey
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,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. 2002. The appealing party mustserve a copy of the petition upon all other parties, including theIndustrial Claim Appeals Office, which may be served by mail at 1515Arapahoe Street, Tower 3, Suite 350, Denver, CO 80202.
Copies of this decision were mailed March 25, 2003 to the following parties:
Ignacio Albarracin, P. O. Box 1562, Greeley, CO 80632
Meymar Drive-In, Inc. d/b/a McDonald’s, 2440 8th Ave., Greeley, CO 80631-7035
Brandee DeFalco Galvin, Esq., Pinnacol Assurance — Interagency Mail (For Respondents)
Bob Ring, Esq., and Gina Gradecki, Esq., 2550 Stover St., Bldg. C, Ft. Collins, CO 80525 (For Claimant)
By: A. Hurtado