W.C. No. 4-525-602.Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
August 30, 2004.
FINAL ORDER
The pro se claimant seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Friend (ALJ). We affirm.
The ALJ found the respondents overcame by clear and convincing evidence the opinions of the Division-sponsored independent medical examination (DIME) physician that the claimant reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) on April 12, 2003, and that the claimant sustained permanent medical impairment of 14 percent as a whole person. Relying primarily on the reports and testimony of one of the claimant’s treating physicians, Dr. Lesnak, the ALJ found it highly probable that the DIME physician’s findings were incorrect, and that the claimant reached MMI on April 24, 2002, and sustained no permanent medical impairment. Consequently the ALJ denied the claims for temporary total disability (TTD) benefits commencing April 24, 2002, and denied the claim for permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits.
The claimant filed a timely petition to review alleging that the record does not support the denial of TTD and PPD benefits. However, the petition contains no specific arguments or citations to the record, and the claimant failed to file a brief in support of the petition to review. Consequently, the effectiveness of our review is limited.
The DIME physician’s findings concerning the date of MMI and the degree of permanent medical impairment are binding on the ALJ and the parties unless overcome by clear and convincing evidence. Section 8-42-107(8)(b)(III) (c), C.R.S. 2003; Cordova v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 55 P.3d 186 (Colo.App. 2002). The questions of whether a party has overcome a DIME physician’s findings of MMI and medical impairment by clear and convincing evidence raise issues of fact for determination by the ALJ. Wilson v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 81 P.3d 1117 (Colo.App. 2003); Postlewait v. Midwest Barricade, 905 P.2d 21 (Colo.App. 1995). Because these issues are factual in nature, we must uphold the ALJ’s determinations if supported by substantial evidence in the record. Section 8-43-301(8), C.R.S. 2003.
The ALJ made detailed findings of fact concerning the evidence, and placed great weight on the opinions of Dr. Lesnak. It was for the ALJ to assess the weight of the evidence, including the credibility of the expert medical opinions. Wilson v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, supra. Our review of the transcript and the other evidence in the record reveals there is substantial, albeit conflicting, evidence to support the ALJ’s findings that the respondents overcame the DIME physician’s opinions on MMI and medical impairment. Consequently, there is no basis to interfere with the order.
Similarly, the record supports the finding that, regardless of the date of MMI, the claimant was released to regular employment on April 24, 2002. Thus, as the ALJ recognized, the claimant is not entitled to TTD benefits after that date even if he did not reach MMI. Section 8-42-105(3)(c), C.R.S. 2003; Burns v. Robinson Dairy, 911 P.2d 661
(Colo.App. 1995).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated March 19, 2004, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
__________________________ David Cain
__________________________ Kathy E. Dean
Juan Alvarez, Downey, CA, Sheryl Wittstruck, Excel Corporation, Fort Morgan, CO, Cargill, Inc., c/o Margaret Johnson, Crawford
Company, Fort Collins, CO, Tama L. Levine, Esq., Denver, CO, for Respondents.