W.C. No. 4-471-216Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
March 3, 2003
FINAL ORDER
The claimant seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Henk (ALJ) which denied and dismissed a claim for medical treatment of a cervical spine condition. The claimant asserts the evidence does not support the order. We affirm.
The claimant sustained a compensable upper extremity injury in May 2000. The claimant alleged that on February 19, 2001, he suffered an additional injury to his cervical spine while receiving physical therapy for the upper extremity injury.
However, the ALJ found the claimant’s testimony concerning the onset of his cervical symptoms was not credible because it was contradicted by the physical therapist’s medical records, which showed the claimant began experiencing symptoms the day before the physical therapy session. The ALJ further credited the opinions of Dr. Wunder and Dr. Hrutkay that the claimant’s symptoms and need for surgery are most probably associated with natural deterioration precipitated by a prior cervical fusion.
On review, the claimant contends he is “entitled to a finding that the neck injury he had is related to the” claim for the upper extremity injury. In support of this contention the claimant cites his own testimony that the cervical symptoms occurred in conjunction with the physical therapy session and the absence of any such symptoms before the physical therapy. The claimant further asserts the respondents “offered only argument” that the cervical symptoms were not caused by the physical therapy.
An injury sustained while undergoing authorized treatment for an industrial injury is considered to be a compensable consequence of the industrial injury. Price Mine Service, Inc. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, __ P.3d __ (Colo.App. No. 02CA0375, January 2, 2003). However, the claimant is required to prove the alleged injury was caused by the treatment for the industrial injury. This is true because the quasi-course of employment doctrine is predicated on the theory that treatment for an industrial injury is a necessary and reasonable activity implied by the employment contract. See Excel Corp. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 860 P.2d 1393 (Colo.App. 1993). Conversely, injuries which result from an efficient intervening cause are not compensable Price Mine Service, Inc. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, supra.
The question of whether an injury is the result of an efficient intervening cause or authorized treatment for the industrial injury is one of fact for the ALJ. Owens v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 49 P.3d 1187 (Colo.App. 2002). Because the issue is factual in nature, we must uphold the ALJ’s determination if supported by substantial evidence in the record. Section 8-43-301(8), C.R.S. 2002. This standard of review requires us to defer to the ALJ’s credibility determinations, resolution of conflicts in the evidence, and plausible inferences drawn from the record. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Industrial Claims Office, 989 P.2d 251 (Colo.App. 1999).
Here, the claimant failed to procure a transcript of the hearing. Consequently, we must presume the ALJ’s findings of fact, particularly those involving the claimant’s testimony and credibility, are supported by substantial evidence. Nova v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 754 P.2d 800 (Colo.App. 1988). Further, the medical evidence credited by the ALJ supports the finding that the claimant’s cervical condition was most likely caused by natural degeneration resulting from the previous spinal fusion. Thus, the record supports the ALJ’s findings, and there is no basis to interfere with the order.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated March 6, 2002, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
___________________________________ David Cain
___________________________________ Bill Whitacre
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,CO 80203, by filing a petition for review with the Court, within twenty(20) days after the date this Order is mailed, pursuant to §8-43-301(10) and § 8-43-307, C.R.S. 2002. The appealing party mustserve a copy of the petition upon all other parties, including theIndustrial Claim Appeals Office, which may be served by mail at 1515Arapahoe Street, Tower 3, Suite 350, Denver, CO 80202.
Copies of this decision were mailed March 3, 2003 to the following parties:
Jeffrey Eikenberg, 404 5th St., Pierce, CO 80650
Rachelle Miller, Millard Refrigerated Services, Inc., 4715 So. 132nd St., Omaha, N.E. 68137
Jennifer Page, Sentry Insurance, P. O. Box 8032, Stevens Point, WI 54481
John M. Connell, Esq., 6750 Stapleton South Dr., #200, Denver, CO 80216 (For Claimant)
John M. Lebsack, Esq., 950 17th St., 21st Floor, Denver, CO 80202 (For Respondents)
By: A. Hurtado