W.C. No. 4-659-908.Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
December 12, 2006.
FINAL ORDER
The claimant seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Friend (ALJ) dated August 3, 2006, that found the claimant’s shoulder injury not to be compensable and that therefore denied and dismissed his claim. We affirm.
The ALJ’s findings of fact may be summarized for purposes of this order as follows. The claimant filed a written report of injury when he filed his workers’ compensation claim on August 3, 2005. The claimant testified that he fell into a meter pit while on the job at a condominium complex on April 4, 2004, and injured his left shoulder on the wall of the pit. He also testified that he reported the injury the same day to representatives of the employer. He also testified to using a 36-inch pipe wrench to repair a leaking water meter after his supervisor approved making the repair. A supervisor testified that the claimant advised him the claimant had fallen in a meter pit, but that the supervisor did not report the alleged injury, notwithstanding the fact that he was to file written reports when an employee was injured. However, the supervisor’s testimony was not credible. A work invoice showed that a seeping backflow was repaired at the complex on April 4, 2004; however, the work did not take place in a meter pit and such repairs are not made using something as large as a 36-inch pipe wrench.
Dr. James Johnson examined the claimant on April 16, 2004 and noted the claimant’s chief complaint was left shoulder pain and, also, that the claimant “slipped and fell at home.” The employer’s president testified that the claimant told him he had slipped and fell at home and needed shoulder surgery. The claimant’s testimony that he slipped and fell at “a home,” and not at his home as reported by Dr. Johnson, was determined by the ALJ not to be credible. The claimant told Dr. Johnson and the employer’s president that he slipped and fell at his home and not at the complex. The claimant injured his shoulder at home and not in the course of his employment. Based on these findings, the ALJ determined that the claimant failed to meet his burden of establishing a compensable injury and dismissed his claim.
The claimant argues in his petition to review that the denial of his claim is not consistent with applicable law, that the facts do not support the denial of his claim, and that the findings of fact do not support the order. Under § 8-43-301(8), we are precluded from disturbing the ALJ’s order unless the findings of fact are insufficient to permit appellate review, the ALJ has not resolved conflicts in the evidence, the record does not support the findings, the order is not supported by the findings, or the order is not supported by applicable law. The claimant has not filed a brief in support of his petition to review and, therefore, the effectiveness of our review is severely limited Ortiz v. Industrial Commission, 734 P.2d 642 (Colo.App. 1986).
The claimant had the burden to prove that his alleged disability was proximately caused by an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. Section 8-41-301(1)(c), C.R.S. 2006. Whether the claimant met that burden of proof is a factual question for resolution by the ALJ, and his determination must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence in the record. Dover Elevator Co. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 961 P.2d 1141 (Colo.App. 1998). Substantial evidence is that quantum of probative evidence which a rational fact finder would accept as adequate to support a conclusion without regard to the existence of conflicting evidence. Durocher v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 905 P.2d 4 (Colo.App. 1995).
Because these questions are factual in nature, we are bound by the ALJ’s determinations in this regard if they are supported by substantial evidence in the record. § 8-43-301(8), C.R.S. 2006. Thus, the scope of our review is “exceedingly narrow.” Metro Moving Storage Co. v. Gussert, 914 P.2d 411 (Colo.App. 2003). This narrow standard of review also requires that we defer to the ALJ’s resolution of conflicts in the evidence, credibility determinations, and plausible inferences drawn from the record. Wilson v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 81 P.3d 1117
(Colo.App. 2003). Further, we must presume the ALJ’s findings are supported by the evidence where no transcript has been designated Nova v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 754 P.2d 800 (Colo.App. 1988).
The findings made by the ALJ fully support his conclusion that the claimant failed to establish a compensable injury. We therefore decline to disturb the ALJ’s decision.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ=s order dated August 3, 2006, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
____________________________________
John D. Baird
____________________________________
Curt Kriksciun
Benny Deinkin, 10987 Alvin Drive, Northglenn, CO 80233 SchultzIndustries, Inc., Pam Schultz, 13451 W. 23rd Drive,Golden, CO 80202 Mid-Century Insurance Company, Lisa Watkins, P.O. Box372660, Denver, CO 80237 Joel N. Varnell, Esq., 1801 Broadway Ave.,Suite 1500, Denver, CO 80202-3878 (For Respondents)