W.C. No. 4-462-156Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
May 24, 2001
FINAL ORDER
The claimant seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Muramoto (ALJ) which determined the claimant failed to sustain his burden to prove he suffered an injury arising out of and the course of his employment and, therefore, denied and dismissed the claim for workers’ compensation benefits. We affirm.
The claimant worked for the employer as a groundskeeper and maintenance man. The claimant alleged a back injury on May 4, 2000, when he moved an oven with a co-employee. He testified that he did not immediately report the injury because he hoped it would gradually improve. On May 15, 2000, the claimant reported the alleged injury to the employer. The claimant also testified that he reinjured his back while sweeping during work on May 15, 2000.
The record contains conflicting evidence. The ALJ resolved the conflicts in favor of the respondents, and determined the claimant’s history of the injury was not credible. Therefore, the ALJ determined the claimant failed to prove a compensable injury.
On review, the claimant contends the ALJ’s findings of fact are not supported by substantial evidence in the record. In particular, the claimant contends that contrary to the ALJ’s findings, the respondents’ witnesses corroborated his history of the injury. Further, the claimant contends the record does not support the ALJ’s finding that the claimant recanted his claim that he aggravated his back injury while sweeping on May 15. Finally, the claimant contends the record compels a finding the employer knew about the claimant’s back pain between May 5 and May 15 but denied liability because of bias against employees who report work-related injuries. Therefore, the claimant contends the ALJ erroneously denied the claim. We perceive no basis to disturb the ALJ’s order.
Initially, we note that the claimant’s Designation of Record includes the “complete Division of Workers’ Compensation file.” The record transmitted to us on appeal apparently does not include the complete Division of Workers’ Compensation file. However, our review is limited to the evidentiary record before the ALJ, and there is no evidence in the record which suggests the claimant requested the ALJ to consider the entire Division of Workers’ Compensation file as part of the evidentiary record for the hearing. See City of Boulder v. Dinsmore, 902 P.2d 925 (Colo.App. 1995); Rules of Procedure, Part VIII(A)(7), 7 Code Colo. Reg. 1101-3 at 22. Consequently, we have not obtained or considered the Division of Workers’ Compensation file, but restricted our review to the record made at the hearing and contained in the Division of Administrative Hearings file.
It was the claimant’s burden to prove by a preponderance of evidence that he suffered a compensable injury while working for the employer. Section 8-43-201 C.R.S. 2000; Younger v. City and County of Denver, 810 P.2d 647 (Colo. 1991). A compensable injury is one which arises out of and in the course of employment. Section 8-41-301(1)(b), C.R.S. 2000 Madden v. Mountain West Fabricators, 977 P.2d 861 (Colo. 1999). Where the claimant’s entitlement to workers’ compensation benefits is disputed, the claimant must prove a causal relationship between the need for treatment and the conditions of employment. See § 8-41-301(1)(c), C.R.S. 2000; Snyder v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 942 P.2d 1337
(Colo.App. 1997). Whether the claimant sustained his burden of proof is a question of fact for the ALJ. City of Durango v. Dunagan, 939 P.2d 496
(Colo.App. 1997).
Because the issues are factual, we must uphold the ALJ’s determinations if supported by substantial evidence and plausible inferences drawn from the record. Section 8-43-301(8), C.R.S. 2000. We have no authority to substitute our judgment for that of the ALJ concerning the credibility of the witnesses, and we may not reweigh the evidence on appeal. City of Durango v. Dunagan, supra; Delta Drywall v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 868 P.2d 1155 (Colo.App. 1993).
Here, the ALJ’s findings are supported by plausible inferences from the evidence in the record. It is immaterial on review that the record contains evidence which could support other inferences or a contrary determination. Ackerman v. Hilton’s Mechanical Men, Inc., 914 P.2d 524
(Colo.App. 1996); Dow Chemical Co. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 843 P.2d 122 (Colo.App. 1992). Further, the findings support the conclusion the claimant failed to prove that he suffered a back injury during his employment. Therefore, the ALJ did not err in dismissing the claim. See Dover Elevator Co. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 961 P.2d 1141 (Colo.App. 1998).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated November 22, 2000, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
____________________________________ Kathy E. Dean
____________________________________ Bill Whitacre
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. 2000. 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 May 24, 2001 to the following parties:
R. Scott Ammerman, 9595 Pecos, Lot 385, Thornton, CO 80260
Jean Russell, J. G. Management Company, 6445 E. Ohio Ave., #100C, Denver, CO 80224
Michael J. Steiner, Esq., Colorado Compensation Insurance Authority d/b/a Pinnacol Assurance — Interagency Mail (For Respondents)
David R. DiGiacomo, Esq., Aspen Business Park, 5400 Ward Rd., Bldg. III, #200, Arvada, CO 80002-1822 (For Claimant)
Thomas M. Schrant, Esq., 1660 S. Albion St., #425, Denver, CO 80222
BY: A. Pendroy