W.C. No. 4-140-127Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
October 30, 1995
FINAL ORDER
The claimant has filed a Petition for Review of a Corrected Order of Administrative Law Judge Gandy (ALJ) dated, February 23, 1995, which denied the claimant’s petition to reopen. We affirm.
The ALJ found that the claim was closed pursuant the respondents’ filing of an uncontested Final Admission of Liability on August 31, 1992. Based upon the totality of the evidence, the ALJ determined that the claimant’s testimony concerning a change in her condition from the industrial injury was not credible. The ALJ was also not persuaded that the medical treatment the claimant obtained after August 1992 was related to the industrial injury, and determined that there was no credible evidence that additional medical treatment is required to cure or relieve the effects of the industrial injury. Therefore, the ALJ denied and dismissed the petition to reopen.
The claimant’s Petition for Review alleges that the ALJ’s findings of fact are not supported by the evidence, that the findings do not support the conclusions of law, and that the ALJ erred as a matter of law. However, the claimant did not file a brief in support of her Petition. Consequently, the effectiveness of our review is limited.
We have reviewed the ALJ’s order and the record. Contrary to the claimant’s allegation, the ALJ’s factual determinations are consistent with the medical evidence he explicitly found persuasive. Further, this medical evidence constitutes substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s findings of fact. See Dow Chemical Co. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 843 P.2d 122
(Colo.App. 1992) (ALJ free to credit one medical opinion to the exclusion of a contrary medical opinion). Consequently, we must uphold the ALJ’s factual determination that the claimant did not sustain her burden to prove a worsening of condition. Section 8-43-301(8), C.R.S. (1995 Cum. Supp.) Prestige Homes, Inc. v. Legouffe, 658 P.2d 850 (Colo. 1983) (findings supported by substantial, albeit, conflicting evidence are binding on review).
Moreover, the ALJ’s findings support a conclusion that the claimant failed to establish a statutory basis to reopen the claim. Section 8-43-303(1), C.R.S. (1995 Cum. Supp.). Therefore, we cannot say that the ALJ erred as a matter of law in failing to grant the petition to reopen Osborne v. Industrial Commission, 725 P.2d 63 (Colo.App. 1986) (ALJ’s order concerning the reopening of a claim is absolute, absent fraud or abuse of discretion).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s Corrected Order dated, March 2, 1995, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
____________________________________ David Cain
____________________________________ Kathy E. Dean
NOTICE
This Order is final unless an action to modify or vacate this Order iscommenced in the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2 East 14th Avenue, Denver, CO80203, by filing a petition for review with the court, with service of acopy of the petition upon the Industrial Claim Appeals Office and allother parties, within twenty (20) days after the date this Order ismailed, pursuant to section 8-43-301(10) and 307, C.R.S. (1995 Cum.Supp.).
Copies of this decision were mailed October 30, 1995 to the following parties:
Roxanne Curtis-Trotz, P.O. Box 271343, Ft. Collins, CO 80527-1343
Colson Colson d/b/a Parkwood Estates, P.O. Box 260729, Lakewood, CO 80226-0729
Employers Ins. of Wausau, Attn: Mark Miller, P.O. Box 419157, Kansas City, MO 64141-6157
Stephen J. Jouard, Esq., P.O. Drawer J. Ft. Collins, CO 80522 (For the Claimant)
James L. Carpenter, Esq., 679 Grant St., Denver, CO 80203 (For the Respondents)
BY: _______________________