W.C. No. 4-370-828Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
January 14, 1999
FINAL ORDER
The claimant seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Erickson (ALJ), which denied and dismissed her claim for temporary disability benefits. The claimant disputes the ALJ’s finding that she failed to prove a compensable injury arising out of and in the course of her employment. We affirm.
At the hearing, the claimant testified that she injured her back when her supervisor forcibly grabbed her, pulled her ten to fifteen feet, and acted as if he would throw her off a loading dock. The claimant indicated that she felt pain in her back as she turned to grab the supervisor to prevent herself from falling.
The supervisor testified that an incident occurred, but denied that he could have injured the claimant. The supervisor indicated that he applied little if any force in walking the claimant towards the loading dock.
Alternatively, the claimant testified that she sustained an injury five to ten minutes later when a piece of cardboard hit her heels. The claimant stated that her husband, who was driving a fork lift, pushed some cardboard into her causing pain.
The medical records reveal that the claimant reported to the Salud Clinic on February 4, 1998, the day of the alleged injury. Claimant returned to the clinic on February 10, 1998, and the notes from that date indicate the claimant was suffering from a “back strain from lifting,” but continued to work at her job.
Under these circumstances, the ALJ found that the claimant failed to prove a compensable injury arising out of and in the course of her employment. The ALJ found that the claimant’s testimony was not credible, and that he did not “believe her version of events.”
On review, the claimant contends the ALJ “ignored” evidence supporting her testimony concerning the injury. The claimant argues that the ALJ should have discredited the supervisor’s testimony because he feared for his job. The claimant also points out that she testified concerning the mechanism of the injury and clarified the discrepancies in the medical records. We are not persuaded.
The claimant had the burden of proof to establish that she sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of her employment. Section 8-41-301(1)(c), C.R.S. 1998; § 8-43-201, C.R.S. 1998. The question of whether the claimant carried her burden of proof to establish causation is one of fact for determination by the ALJ. Rockwell International v. Turnbull, 802 P.2d 1182 (Colo.App. 1990).
Because the issue of causation is factual, we must uphold the ALJ’s order if supported by substantial evidence in the record. Section 8-43-301(8), C.R.S. 1998; City of Durango v. Dunagan, 939 P.2d 496 (Colo.App. 1997). In applying this standard, we must defer to the ALJ’s resolution of conflicts in the evidence, his credibility determinations, and the plausible inferences he drew from the evidence. Metro Moving Storage Co. v. Gussert, 914 P.2d 411 (Colo.App. 1995). Insofar as the testimony of a witness contains internal inconsistencies, the ALJ may resolve the problem by believing part or none of the testimony. El Paso County Department of Social Services v. Donn, 865 P.2d 877 (Colo.App. 1993).
Finally, an ALJ need not make findings of fact concerning every piece of evidence. Rather, it is sufficient for the ALJ to make findings concerning the evidence he finds determinative of the issues. Riddle v. Ampex Corp., 839 P.2d 489 (Colo.App. 1992).
Here, the ALJ determined the claimant failed to carry her burden of proof because her testimony was inconsistent with the medical records, and contradicted by the testimony of the supervisor. It is true that some evidence in the record would have supported different findings and conclusions. However, the ALJ was not required to credit that evidence, and we decline the claimant’s invitation to substitute our judgement for that of the ALJ concerning the credibility of the witnesses or the inferences to be drawn from the record. Moreover, the findings are sufficient to indicate the basis of the order, and it is unnecessary to remand the matter for findings on the evidence cited by the claimant.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated May 29, 1998, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
____________________________________ David Cain
____________________________________ Kathy E. Dean
NOTICE
This Order is final unless an action to modify or vacate the Order is commenced in the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2 East 14th Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80203, by filing a petition to review with the court, with service of a copy of the petition upon the Industrial Claim Appeals Office and all other parties, within twenty (20) days after the date the Order was mailed, pursuant to §§ 8-43-301(10) and 307, C.R.S. 1998.
Copies of this decision were mailed January 14, 1999
to the following parties:
Irma D. Alvarez, 6791 Highway 42, #18, Commerce City, CO 80022
Metro Temporaries, Inc., 9101 Pearl Street, Suite 104, Denver, CO 80229-4352
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Attn: Teresa Manshardt, 13111 E. Briarwood Avenue, Suite 1000, Englewood, CO 80112
Rodrigo S. Gloria, Esq., 1750 High Street, Denver, CO 80218 (For Claimant)
David G. Kroll, Esq., Law Offices of Jonathan S. Robbins, 1120 Lincoln Street, Suite 1606, Denver, CO 80203 (For Respondents)
BY: ____________