W.C. No. 3-061-118Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
July 8, 1999.
FINAL ORDER
The claimant seeks review of a final order of Administrative Law Judge Martinez (ALJ) which denied his petition to reopen. The claimant contends that medical reports of the treating physician compelled the ALJ to conclude there was a worsening of condition which requires additional diagnostic and medical treatments. We affirm.
The claimant sustained a compensable back injury in 1989. Although the treating physician, Dr. Tice, originally placed the claimant at maximum medical improvement (MMI) in December 1990, the claimant’s condition deteriorated and he received additional treatment. Dr. Tice again placed the claimant at MMI in November 1991, and the respondents filed a Final Admission of Liability dated December 21, 1991.
In August 1998 the claimant filed a petition to reopen alleging a worsened condition. At the hearing, the claimant testified that he was suffering from severe back pain, that his left leg was totally numb, and that he was suffering from bladder urgency and sexual dysfunction. The claimant also relied on medical reports from Dr. Tice dated May 27, 1998, and August 7, 1998. Dr. Tice stated the claimant was “improved slightly” from when he was last examined in March 1994, and that the claimant “had not changed in any major way.” Nevertheless, Dr. Tice opined that the numbness in the claimant’s left leg was a “subtle indication of neurological worsening” and he recommended an MRI and a trial of epidural steroids.
The ALJ denied the petition to reopen finding the claimant failed to prove a worsened condition. In support, the ALJ cited medical records from 1991 stating that the claimant reported numbness in his entire left leg, suffered from urinary urgency, and experienced sexual difficulties. The ALJ also cited medical reports dated after the final admission, but before the petition to reopen, documenting the continuation of similar symptoms.
On review, the claimant contends the ALJ failed to give sufficient weight to Dr. Tice’s recommendations for an MRI and epidural steroids blocks. The claimant contends this evidence is “unrebutted” and establishes that there has been a “neurological worsening” which requires “additional medical treatment.” We are not persuaded.
Section 8-43-303(1), C.R.S. 1998, provides the ALJ may reopen an award based on a “change in condition.” A change in condition refers to a change in the claimant’s physical condition which is causally connected to the original industrial injury. Lucero v. Climax Molybdenum Co., 732 P.2d 642 (Colo. 1987). The ALJ has wide discretion in determining whether the claimant proved a worsened condition, and we may not interfere with the decision unless an abuse has been shown. Osborne v. Industrial Commission, 725 P.2d 63 (Colo.App. 1986).
An abuse of discretion is not shown unless the order is beyond the bounds of reason, as where it is contrary to law or unsupported by the evidence. Rosenberg v. Board of Education of School District No. 1, 710 P.2d 1095 (Colo. 1985). Further, we may not interfere with the ALJ’s factual findings if supported by substantial evidence in the record. Section 8-43-301(8), C.R.S. 1998. Under this standard, the weight, credibility, and inferences to be drawn from expert medical testimony are matters within the ALJ’s province as fact-finder. Rockwell International v. Turnbull, 802 P.2d 1182 (Colo.App. 1990). To the extent an expert’s testimony contains inconsistencies, the ALJ may resolve them by crediting part or none of the testimony. Colorado Springs Motors, Ltd. v. Industrial Commission, 165 Colo. 504, 441 P.2d 21
(1968). Testimony not explicitly credited is implicitly discredited. Cooper v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, ___ P.2d ___ (98CA 1343, March 18, 1999).
The claimant’s argument notwithstanding, the reports of Dr. Tice dated May 27, 1998, and August 7, 1998, are ambiguous concerning whether or not the claimant’s condition worsened. Dr. Tice describes the claimant’s condition as “improved slightly” from the last examination in 1994, but also recommends new diagnostic and medical treatments. The ALJ was free to credit those portions of the reports supporting his conclusion that there was no worsening, while implicitly discrediting the alternative inferences. Given the ambiguity of Dr. Tice’s reports, the ALJ properly considered the claimant’s medical history and determined the symptoms which the claimant reported in 1998 already existed at the time the claim was closed in 1991. Consequently, the record supports the ALJ’s determination the claimant failed to prove a worsened condition, and the mere fact the evidence might have supported contrary findings and conclusions affords no basis for relief on appeal. The ALJ did not abuse his discretion in denying the petition to reopen.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated January 13, 1999, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
____________________________________ David Cain
____________________________________ Kathy E. Dean
NOTICE
This Order is final unless an action to modify or vacate the Order is commenced in the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2 East 14th Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80203, by filing a petition to 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 the Order was mailed, pursuant to §§ 8-43-301(10) and 307, C.R.S. 1998.
Copies of this decision were mailed July 8, 1999 to the following parties:
Terry L. Doeksen, 415 N. 12th St., Grand Junction, CO 81501
Mesa Developmental Services, Inc., 950 Grand Ave., Grand Junction, CO 81501-3451
Curt Kriksciun, Esq., Colorado Compensation Insurance Authority — Interagency Mail (For Respondents)
Stephen J. Worrell, Esq., 201 8th St., P.O. Box 1089, Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 (For Claimant)
Scot J. Houska, Esq., 415 Brach Dr., Grand Junction, CO 81503
By: A. Pendroy