W.C. Nos. 4-162-568 AND 4-235-366Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
May 27, 1999.
FINAL ORDER
The claimant seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Wheelock (ALJ) which denied her request for medical benefits to treat her bilateral upper extremity and eye condition. We affirm the order denying benefits for the bilateral upper extremity problem, set aside the order denying benefits for the eye condition and remand for the entry of a new order concerning the respondents’ liability for treatment of the eye condition.
The claimant was employed by The Spectranetics Corporation (Spectranetics) from 1990 to January 1993. W.C. No. 4-162-568
pertains to an admitted claim of occupational asthma due to exposure to epoxy glue. The claimant contends that as a result of the epoxy exposure, she also developed swelling and drooping eyelids which was diagnosed as blepharochalasis (redundant tissue in the upper eyelids). The respondents denied liability for the claimant’s eyelid condition.
W.C. No. 4-235-366 involves an alleged repetitive motion injury to the claimant’s upper extremities. The respondents also denied liability for this injury.
On conflicting medical evidence, the ALJ determined the claimant failed to sustain her burden to prove a causal connection between the blepharochalasis and the occupational exposure to epoxy glue. In support, the ALJ found that “no physician was able to causally connect” the claimant’s blepharochalasis to the epoxy exposure. (See Conclusion of Law 1). The ALJ also credited Dr. Vandersarl’s opinion that the claimant’s blepharochalasis was probably caused by genetic factors, not the claimant’s employment.
Crediting Dr. Fry’s opinion that the claimant’s upper extremity problems are due to hypothyroidism, the ALJ also determined that the claimant failed to prove a compensable injury in W.C. No. 4-235-366. Therefore, the ALJ denied and dismissed the claim.
I.
On review, the claimant first contends that Dr. Fry’s opinions do not support the ALJ’s finding that she failed to prove a causal connection between her employment and her upper extremity problems. The claimant contends that Dr. Fry’s opinion that she was suffering from hypothyroidism at the time of the alleged injury is not supported by the record. Alternatively, the claimant contends Dr. Fry is not competent to render an opinion on causation because he erroneously assumed that she was asymptomatic until she left her employment at Spectranetics. Further, the claimant contends that Dr. Fry’s opinions cannot be reconciled with the fact that her symptoms did not resolve after she left Spectranetics. We reject these arguments.
Dr. Fry stated that hypothyroidism causes a thickening of the tendon linings which in turn causes the type of pain and complaints identified by the claimant. Dr. Fry diagnosed the claimant’s upper extremity problems as tenosynovitis and opined that tenosynovitis is a fairly common side effect of systemic hypothyroidism.
The claimant admitted that she had been treating for hypothyroidism since 1968. (Tr. p. 14). Therefore, the record contains evidence to support Dr. Fry’s opinion that the claimant was suffering from hypothyroidism between 1990 and 1993. The existence of evidence in the record, which if credited might support a contrary determination is immaterial on review. F.R. Orr Construction v. Rinta, 717 P.2d 965 (Colo.App. 1985).
In addition, Dr. Fry recognized that for several years the claimant had intermittently complained of work-related wrist problems, and that the claimant sought treatment from Dr. Pennington on May 7, 1992, for complaints of right wrist pain. (Dr. Fry January 6, 1997). However, Dr. Fry noted that Dr. Pennington’s records indicated a history of wrist pain due to raking leaves. (Tr. p. 35). Therefore, the record does not support the claimant’s contention that Dr. Fry assumed the claimant was asymptomatic until after January 1993.
Dr. Fry also opined that it was “possible” the claimant’s work activities caused her upper extremity problems. However, after consideration of several other factors, he was not persuaded that the claimant’s work was the cause of the problems. (Tr. pp. 25-27).
Furthermore, Dr. Fry stated that if the claimant’s tendinitis was work related, he would have expected her condition to improve when she left work. (Tr. p. 27). The claimant testified that her condition did not improve after she left Spectranetics. (Tr. p. 12). Therefore, contrary to the claimant’s contention, Dr. Fry’s opinion on the cause of the claimant’s upper extremity problems is consistent with the evidence that the claimant’s condition failed to resolved after January 1993.
Dr. Fry also opined that ganglion cysts are due to a degenerative process not associated with repetitive activities. (Tr. p. 36). Therefore, the record contains substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s inference that the claimant’s wrist problems were not due to her work activities. (Tr. pp. 15, 16).
Moreover, Dr. Fry’s opinions are consistent with Dr. Foster’s opinion that the claimant’s work was not a causative factor in her wrist problems. (See Dr. Foster April 17, 1995). Consequently, we cannot say the ALJ erred in crediting Dr. Fry’s opinions. See Johnson v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 973 P.2d 624
(Colo.App. 1997), cert. denied, April 12, 1999 (ALJ’s credibility determinations binding unless rebutted by such concrete, certain evidence to the contrary that the testimony is incredible as a matter of law).
II.
The claimant also contends the record does not support the ALJ’s determination that she failed to prove a causal connection between her eyelid problems and her occupational asthma. The claimant contends, inter alia, that Dr. Moore, Dr. Stewart, Dr. Telatnik and Dr. Jarvis all attributed her eyelid problems to the exposure to epoxy resins. Therefore, she argues the ALJ erred in finding that “no physician” connected her eyelid problems to the epoxy exposure. (Conclusion of Law 1).
As found by the ALJ, Dr. Stewart did not render any specific opinion on the causal connection between the blepharochalasis and the epoxy allergy. (Dr. Stewart June 28, 1993; Finding of Fact 8). Dr. Jarvis reported that aerosolized epoxy resins can cause eyelid dermatitis and eyelid swelling. (Dr. Jarvis June 28, 1993). However, Dr. Jarvis did not render an opinion concerning a relationship between the claimant’s blepharochalasis and the employment.
Furthermore, the ALJ recognized Dr. Hanson’s statement that the claimant’s redundant eyelid tissue problem “seems to be related to [the claimant’s] toxic allergic reaction to the epoxy resin at her work three years ago.” (Dr. Hanson January 22, 1993; Finding of Fact 9). However, the ALJ did not interpret Dr. Hanson’s comments as reflecting a specific opinion that the claimant’s eyelid problems were due to the epoxy exposure. (Finding of Fact 9).
Nevertheless, in a report dated July 21, 1991, Dr. Moore opined that the claimant’s use of hydrocortisone cream on her eyes to treat her epoxy allergy was causing an “atrophy of the skin of the eyes.” Similarly, on July 25, 1996, Dr. Telatnik wrote that “there is documentation from [the claimant’s] dermatologist Dr. Jarvis at National Jewish Hospital, that [the dropping eyelids] is related to her epoxy resin exposure” and therefore, Dr. Telatnik recommended that the claimant’s eyelid problems be “considered as part of [the claimant’s] work-related illness.” Consequently, the record contains some evidence which, if credited, might support a finding that at least two of the treating physicians connected the blepharochalasis to the claimant’s occupational epoxy exposure.
The respondents do not dispute that the medical reports of Dr. Moore and Dr. Telatnik are part of the record before the ALJ See Brief in Opposition to Petition to Review. (March 2, 1999, p. 10). Instead, the respondents contend that Conclusion of Law 1 reflects the ALJ’s implicit determination that there is no “credible” evidence a treating physician attributed the claimant’s eyelid problems to her employment.
Contrary to the respondents’ contention, we may not construe a finding of “no evidence” as the ALJ’s determination that is no “credible evidence” supporting a particular fact. Hall v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 757 P.2d 1132 (Colo.App. 1988). Further, the ALJ did not make specific findings concerning Dr. Moore and Dr. Telatnik’s opinions on the cause of the claimant’s eyelid problems. Consequently, we are unable to ascertain how the ALJ would have assessed Dr. Vandersarl’s opinions had she recognized the existence of the medical evidence to the contrary. Under these circumstances, we must set aside the ALJ’s order denying medical benefits for treatment of the claimant’s eyelid problems and remand the matter to the ALJ for additional findings and the entry of a new order.
On remand the ALJ shall enter specific findings of fact which resolve the conflict in the medical evidence concerning the cause of the claimant’s blepharochalasis. Based on those findings, the ALJ shall enter a new order concerning the claimant’s entitlement to additional benefits in W.C. No. 4-162-568. However, in remanding the matter, we should not be understood as expressing any opinion concerning the credibility or probative value of the medical evidence. These are issues for resolution by the ALJ See Delta Drywall v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 868 P.2d 1155 (Colo.App. 1993).
In view of our disposition, it is premature to consider the claimant’s remaining arguments.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated March 21, 1997, is set aside insofar as it denied medical benefits in W.C. No. 4-162-568 for treatment of the claimant’s eyelid problems. The matter is remanded to the ALJ for additional findings of fact and the entry of a new order on that issue as indicated above.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the ALJ’s order denying the claim for benefits in W.C. No. 4-235-366, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
________________________________ Kathy E. Dean
________________________________ Dona Halsey
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, with service of a copy of the petition upon the Industrial Claim Appeals Office and all other parties, within twenty (20) days after the date this Order is mailed, pursuant to section 8-43-301(10) and 307, C.R.S. 1998.
Copies of this decision were mailed May 27, 1999 the following parties:
Linda Chapman, 3315 Galleria Terrace, Colorado Springs, CO 80907
The Spectranetics Corporation, 96 Talamine Ct., Colorado Springs, CO 80907-5160
Paulette Tierney, Transamerica Workers’ Compensation, P.O. Box 17005, Denver, CO 80217
Steven U. Mullens, Esq., P.O. Box 2940, Colorado Springs, CO 80901-2940 (For the Claimant)
Carol A. Finley, Esq., 111 S. Tejon, Ste. 700, Colorado Springs, CO 80903 (For the Respondents)
BY: A. Pendroy