W.C. No. 4-493-692.Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
January 29, 2004.
FINAL ORDER
The pro se claimant seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Jaynes (ALJ) which denied her claim for benefits based on stress-induced physiological symptoms. We affirm.
We previously remanded the case to determine whether the claimant showed good cause to file an untimely designation of record and brief in support of the petition to review. On remand those issues were resolved adversely to the claimant, and she does not now seek review of those issues.
In an order dated May 5, 2003, the ALJ found the claimant alleged a claim for “mental impairment” arising out of conflicts with and adverse evaluations rendered by her supervisor. The ALJ rejected the claimant’s contention that her various symptoms, including angina, constitute a “physical injury” outside the scope of the mental impairment statute, § 8-41-301(2)(a), C.R.S. 2003. Having determined that statute applies, the ALJ found the claimant failed to present the “testimony of a licensed physician or psychologist” demonstrating that she suffered a “psychologically traumatic event that is generally outside a worker’s usual experience and would evoke significant symptoms of distress in a worker in similar circumstances.” Further, relying on the reports and testimony of the respondents’ psychiatrist, the ALJ found the claim for mental impairment is not compensable because it arises out of the employer’s good faith evaluation of the claimant’s performance. Thus, the ALJ denied the claim for benefits.
The claimant timely petitioned to review. However, as noted, she failed to procure a transcript of the hearing. Further, the claimant failed to file a brief in support of the petition to review.
In the petition to review, the claimant contends the ALJ erred in denying her request for a “protective order,” and by refusing to admit a medical report which she submitted after the initial hearing. However, because the claimant failed to procure a transcript reflecting the basis of the ALJ’s rulings concerning these issues, we must presume the ALJ’s rulings were correct. See Fleet v. Zwick, 994 P.2d 480, 483 (Colo.App. 1999) (party alleging error has burden to present record sufficient to disclose the error).
The claimant next contends the ALJ’s order does not reflect the ALJ’s consideration of evidence which she presented. However, an ALJ need not make findings concerning evidence which the ALJ determines is not dispositive of the issues. The only requirement is that the ALJ enter findings which are sufficient to indicate the legal and factual bases of the order. Magnetic Engineering, Inc. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 5 P.3d 385 (Colo.App. 2000). Here, the findings are fully adequate to reveal the bases of the ALJ’s ruling.
Moreover, because the claimant failed to procure a transcript, we must presume the ALJ’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Nova v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 754 P.2d 800 (Colo.App. 1988). The ALJ’s findings fully support the order. See Esser v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 8 P.3d 1218 (Colo.App. 2000) (claim is for mental impairment if “stimulus” is mental but effects are physiological), aff’d. on other issues, Department of Labor and Employment v. Esser, 30 P.3d 189 (Colo. 2001); Davison v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 72 P.3d 389 (Colo.App. 2003) cert. granted, July 9, 2003 (claimant must produce “testimony” of a licensed physician or psychologist that there was a psychologically traumatic event outside a worker’s usual experience which would evoke significant symptoms of distress in a worker in similar circumstances); Trujillo v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 957 P.2d 1052 (Colo.App. 1998) (whether mental impairment arises out of circumstances common to all fields of employment is question of fact for resolution by ALJ).
Insofar as the claimant makes other arguments, we find them to be without merit.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated May 5, 2003, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
______________________________ David Cain
______________________________ 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, Colorado 80203, by filing a Petition to Review with the Court, within twenty (20) days after the date this Order was mailed, pursuant to § 8-43-301(10) and § 8-43-307, C.R.S. 2003. 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 order were mailed to the parties at theaddresses shown below on January 29, 2004 by A. Hurtado.
Susan Barron, 134 E. 18th, No. F, Tulsa, OK 74119
State of Colorado Department of Law, 1525 Sherman St., 5th floor, Denver, CO 80203
Legal Department, Pinnacol Assurance — Interagency Mail
Craig H. Russell, Esq., 999 18th St., #3100, Denver, CO 80202 (For Respondents)