W.C. No. 4-537-213.Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
June 6, 2003.
FINAL ORDER
The pro se claimant seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Stuber (ALJ) that dismissed and denied her claim for workers’ compensation benefits. We affirm.
The claimant alleged a work-related left knee injury on February 20, 2002, while climbing stairs. The claimant also alleged twisted her right knee while walking down a corridor to attend a personnel meeting on March 22, 2002.
Crediting the opinions of Dr. Walden the ALJ found the claimant failed to prove her knee problems are the result of the alleged industrial injuries. Therefore, the ALJ determined the claimant failed to prove entitlement to workers’ compensation benefits and dismissed the claim.
The claimant timely filed a petition to review the ALJ’s order. However, the petition contains no specific allegations of error. Further, the claimant has not filed a brief in support of the petition to review. Consequently, the effectiveness of our review is limited. Ortiz v. Industrial Commission, 734 P.2d 642 (Colo.App. 1986).
To prove a compensable injury the claimant was required to prove that the conditions for which she sought workers’ compensation benefits were proximately caused by injuries arising “out of and in the course of” his employment. Section 8-41-301(1)(c), C.R.S. 2002; Faulkner v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 12 P.3d 844 (Colo.App. 2000). The “arising out of” test is one of causation, and requires that the injury have its origin in an employee’s work-related functions. Section 8-41-301(1)(b), C.R.S. 2002.
The question of whether the claimant has met her burden of proof 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 in the record. Section 8-43-301(8), C.R.S. 2002. Under this standard, we must defer to the ALJ’s credibility determinations, his resolution of conflicts in the evidence, and his 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).
Furthermore, our authority to review the ALJ’s order is defined in § 8-43-301(8). That statute precludes us from disturbing the ALJ’s order unless the ALJ’s findings of fact are insufficient to permit appellate review, the ALJ has not resolved conflicts in the evidence, the record does not support the ALJ’s findings, the findings do not support the order, or the order is not supported by the applicable law.
We have reviewed the record and the ALJ’s findings of fact. The ALJ’s findings are sufficient to permit appellate review, and the findings indicate that the ALJ resolved conflicts in the evidence based upon his credibility determinations. See Riddle v. Ampex Corp., 839 P.2d 489
(Colo.App. 1992).
The claimant has not provided a transcript of the hearings on December 12, 2002 and February 13, 2003. See § 8-43-301(2), C.R.S. 2002 (petitioner shall, at the time of the filing of the petition to review, “order any transcript relied upon for the petition to review, arrange with the hearing reporter to pay for the same and notify opposing parties of the transcript ordered.”). Under these circumstances 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).
In any case, the ALJ’s findings are also supported by the medical reports of Dr. Walden. Moreover, the ALJ’s factual determinations support the conclusion that the claimant failed to prove she suffered injuries arising out of her employment. Therefore, the ALJ did not err in denying the claim for workers’ compensation benefits.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated March 5, 2003, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
____________________________________ Kathy E. Dean
____________________________________ Robert M. Socolofsky
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. 2002. 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 June 6, 2003 to the following parties:
Pamela J. Carrasquillo-Woods, 1224 Fagin Dr., Colorado Springs, CO 80915-2209
El Paso County, 105 E. Vermijo, #230, Colorado Springs, CO 80903
Susan K. Reeves, Esq., 111 S. Tejon St., #700, Colorado Springs, CO 80903 (For Respondent)
BY: A. Hurtado