W.C. No. 4-6005-099.Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
April 26, 2006.
FINAL ORDER
The claimant seek review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Henk (ALJ), which denied the claimant’s claim for compensation. We affirm.
The claimant sought workers’ compensation benefits as a result of an incident on February 13, 2001, when he fell at work. The ALJ made the following findings of fact. The claimant fell and struck his head while working. He subsequently sought medical attention and was diagnosed as suffering from a concussion. However, when he reported the incident to the employer, the claimant declined medical treatment. The claimant then obtained medical treatment for complaints of neck and shoulder pain. He also reported that his headaches from the fall were almost gone. The claimant obtained additional medical care in November 2002, at which time his spouse reported to the physician an incident three weeks earlier. While stopped at a stoplight, the claimant’s eyes rolled back, his hands shook, and he appeared to be unconscious for about five minutes. The claimant underwent an MRI, which indicated normal brain findings. Almost two years later, the claimant underwent an EEG which was “possibly abnormal” with the potential indication of a lesion seen in a normal elderly population. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order, at 1-2, ¶¶ 1-8.
Dr. Quintero, a neurologist, credibly and persuasively opined that the claimant’s’ seizures were not causally related to the February 12, 2001 incident, but were more likely vascular in origin. The claimant did not lose time from work due to the February 13, 2001 incident, nor did he report to his employer any headaches, seizures, or inability to perform his work as a result of the incident. The claimant did not sustain an injury as a result of the incident. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order, at 2, ¶¶ 9-12.
The ALJ concluded that the claimant failed to carry his burden of establishing a compensable injury and denied his claim. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order, at 3-4, ¶ 3, 1.
The claimant filed a petition to review asserting the finding that no injury occurred is not supported by substantial evidence and is contrary to undisputed testimony that he sustained an injury diagnosed as a concussion. We do not have the benefit of a brief in support of the petition. See Rule of Procedure VII (D)(2)(c), 7 Code Colo. Reg. 1101-3 at 19. Therefore, the effectiveness of our review is limited. See Ortiz v. Industrial Commission, 734 P.2d 642 (Colo.App. 1986). We are not required to search for citations and authorities which might support the claimant’s vague legal position. See Raygor v. Board of County Commissioners, 21 P.3d 432, 439 (Colo.App. 2000). In addition, an ALJ struck the claimant’s request for a transcript because it was not timely filed. However, the record includes the transcript of the first of two hearings. A stipulation reflects that the wrong ALJ is identified as presiding, but the substance of the transcript is accurate. Therefore, to the extent the claimant refers to matters considered at the last hearing before ALJ Henk, we are required to 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 Workers’ Compensation Act creates a distinction between the terms “accident” and “injury.” The term “accident” refers to an “unexpected, unusual, or undesigned occurrence.” Section 8-40-201(1), C.R.S. 2005. In contrast, an “injury” refers to the physical trauma caused by the accident. In other words, an “accident” is the cause and an “injury” is the result. City of Boulder v. Payne, 162 Colo. 345, 426 P.2d 194 (1967). A “compensable” industrial accident is one which results in an injury requiring medical treatment or causing disability. §8-41-301(1)(c), C.R.S. 2005. Cox v. Allegist/Aerotek W.C. No. 4-642-468 4-642-607 (April 5, 2006).
To prove a compensable injury, the claimant must establish that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment. Madden v. Mountain West Fabricators, 977 P.2d 861 (Colo. 1999). The “arising out of” test is one of causation, and requires that the injury have its origin in an employee’s work-related functions and occur while the claimant is “performing service” arising out of the employment. Section 8-41-301(1)(b), C.R.S. 2005.
The question of whether the claimant met his burden to prove a compensable injury is one of fact for determination by the ALJ Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 989 P.2d 251 (Colo.App. 1999). Consequently, we must uphold the ALJ’s determination if supported by substantial evidence of the record. Section 8-43-301(8), C.R.S. 2005. Under this standard, we must defer to the ALJ’s credibility determinations, her resolution of conflicts in the evidence, and her assessment of the sufficiency and probative weight of the evidence. Arenas v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 8 P.3d. 558 (Colo.App. 2000) Rockwell International v. Turnbull, 802 P.2d 1182 (Colo.App. 1990). We must uphold the ALJ’s order if supported by substantial evidence in the record. Section 8-43-301(8), C.R.S. 2005. Where the evidence is subject to conflicting inferences, we may not interfere with the ALJ’s determination of the inferences to be drawn. Gelco Courier v. Industrial Commission, 702 P.2d 295
(Colo.App. 1985).
The ALJ’s determination that the claimant did not suffer a compensable injury is supported by Dr. Quintero’s report. Exhibit A at 5-6. Furthermore, the claimant testified that he lost no time from work due to the incident on February 13, 2001. Tr. at 24-25. These factual findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record, and thus we may not disturb them. See F.R. Orr Construction v. Rinta, supra. Further, they are consistent with the ALJ’s finding that the claimant failed to sustain his burden of proving that he was injured in the course of his employment. We have no basis for disturbing this determination. See Prestige Homes, Inc. v. Legouffe, 658 P.2d 850, 856 (Colo. 1983).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated November 7, 2005, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
________________________________ John D. Baird
________________________________ Thomas Schrant
Albert Buter, Aurora, CO, Keith Schmaus, Heather Gardens Association, Aurora, CO, Allen Hecker, Wausau Insurance Companies, Kansas City, MO, Gregg C. McReynolds, Esq., Denver, CO, (For Claimant).
Benjamin P. Kramer, Esq., Denver, CO, (For Respondents).