W.C. Nos. 4-724-425.Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
April 16, 2009.
FINAL ORDER
The claimant seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Friend (ALJ) dated November 5, 2008, that denied and dismissed his workers’ compensation claim. We affirm.
The ALJ made the following pertinent findings of fact, which are summarized in the following paragraphs. The claimant testified that he injured his back on May 16, 2007 when a `C channel he was holding tipped over and he fell. The claimant’s wife testified that she filled out a statement based on what her husband had told her about the accident. The statement indicated that the injury occurred on May 17, 2007. A co-worker testified that on May 16, 2007 the claimant did not appear to be in any pain or discomfort.
The claimant testified that he told the owner of the company that he had an accident on May 16, 2007, and the owner told him to take the rest of the day off and waited with him at the end of the day for the claimant’s wife to pick him up. The owner testified that the claimant did not tell him that he had a back injury and that he did not wait with the claimant at the end of the day. The owner further testified that he was not aware of the claimed accident and injury until May 21, 2007. The claimant testified that he went to work on May 17, 2007 and attempted to lift a truss, but immediately put it back down realizing that he could not lift it. A subcontractor who was not presently working for the employer testified that he worked with the claimant on May 17, 2007, the claimant assisted in putting up tresses, and that the claimant was able to do this heavy work.
Page 2
A second coworker testified that he worked near the claimant on May 16, 2007 and did not see or hear a `C channel fall, and that the claimant did not appear to be in discomfort. The claimant first sought medical treatment for the alleged accident on May 21, 2007, which was after the claimant was notified that his employment had been terminated and after the claimant had stated that he would file a workers’ compensation claim. The note from the Medical Center of Aurora stated that the claimant complained of a gradual onset of back pain and that the patient denied an injury. Exhibit C at 17.
The ALJ weighed the medical evidence and testimony and concluded that the testimony of the claimant was not as persuasive as the testimony of the respondents’ witnesses. 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 appealed.
Under § 8-43-301(8), C.R.S. 2008 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 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. 2008. 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. Metro Moving Storage Co. v. Gussert, 914 P.2d 411, 415 (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. Section 8-43-301(8), C.R.S. 2008. Thus, the scope of our review is “exceedingly narrow.” Metro Moving Storage Co. v. Gussert, supra. 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).
Page 3
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, that the findings of fact are not sufficient to permit appellate review and that the findings of fact do not support the order. However, in our view 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 issued November 5, 2008 is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
____________________________________ John D. Baird
____________________________________ Thomas Schrant
Page 4
CURTIS DOOLEY, AURORA, CO, (Claimant).
PINNACOL ASSURANCE, Attn: HARVEY D FLEWELLING, ESQ., DENVER, CO, (Insurer).
TAUSSIG LAW FIRM LLC, Attn: JOHN TAUSSIG III, ESQ., BOULDER, CO, (For Claimant).
RUEGSEGGER SIMONS SMITH STERN LLC, Attn: ALEXANDRA E COLEMAN, ESQ., DENVER, CO, (For Respondents).