W.C. No. 4-606-549.Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
June 3, 2005.
FINAL ORDER
The claimant seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Harr (ALJ) which denied the claim for workers’ compensation benefits. We affirm.
The claimant alleged that she sustained degenerative disc disease (DDD) as a result of her duties as a nursing assistant, and that the DDD caused a disc herniation at L5-S1. Alternatively, the claimant alleged that she sustained a compensable industrial injury on October 10, 2003, when pushing a bed, and that this injury caused the herniation.
However, the ALJ found the claimant failed to prove a compensable injury arising out of and in the course of her employment. Specifically, the ALJ discredited the claimant’s testimony that she sustained an injury on October 10, finding it more probable that the claimant injured her back on October 11 while performing yard work at home. In support the ALJ noted the claimant initially reported to the emergency room physician that she developed back pain after raking her yard for six hours on October 11, and did not associate the pain with moving a bed on October 10. The claimant also told fellow employees that she injured her back while roto-tilling her yard. Further, the ALJ credited the testimony of the respondents’ medical expert who opined the DDD was probably caused by non-industrial factors, including genetic predisposition, and that the yard work was a more likely explanation for the herniation than pushing a bed.
On review the claimant contends the ALJ erred in finding that she failed to prove a compensable injury. The claimant relies on her own testimony, and cites the testimony of the treating physician who opined that pushing the bed probably aggravated the claimant’s preexisting condition. We disagree with the claimant’s argument.
The claimant bore the burden of proof to establish that her disability and need for treatment was caused by an injury or occupational disease arising out of and in the course of her employment. Section 8-41-301(1)(c), C.R.S. 2004. The question of whether the claimant met the burden of proof is one of fact for determination by the ALJ. Faulkner v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 12 P.3d 844 (Colo.App. 2000).
Because the issue is one of fact we must uphold the ALJ’s determination if supported by substantial evidence in the record. Section 8-43-301(8), C.R.S. 2004. This standard of review requires that we defer to the ALJ’s resolution of conflicts in the evidence, credibility determinations and plausible inferences drawn from the record. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Industrial Claims Office, 989 P.2d 251 (Colo.App. 1999). We specifically note the weight and credibility to be assigned the testimony of medical experts on the issue of causation is a matter for the ALJ. Cordova v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 55 P.3d 186
(Colo.App. 2002).
Here, the ALJ made exhaustive findings of fact which are fully supported by the record. We have no basis to interfere with the ALJ’s decisions to credit the testimony of the respondents’ expert and discredit the claimant’s testimony. Moreover, the record contains other evidence which supports the ALJ’s finding that the claimant failed to prove that her condition was caused by an industrial injury or occupational disease. Therefore, we need not reach the other issues raised by the claimant and the order must be affirmed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated November 18, 2004, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
___________________ David Cain
___________________ Kathy E. Dean
Jessica Emery, Aurora, CO, PorterCare, Denver, CO, Rocky Mountain Adventist, c/o Toni Owens, CCMSI Inc., Denver, CO, Ligita S. Bardulis, Esq., Denver, CO, (For Claimant).
Pamela Musgrave, Esq., Denver, CO, (For Respondents).