W.C. No. 4-272-463Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
July 28, 1999.
FINAL ORDER
The claimant seeks review of final order of Administrative Law Judge Rumler (ALJ) which denied his petition to reopen based on a worsened condition. The claimant contends the evidence compelled the ALJ to find a causal relationship between the industrial injury and the claimant’s symptoms. We affirm.
The claimant sustained a compensable back injury in October 1995. In February 1996 the treating physician placed the claimant at maximum medical improvement (MMI). The physician reported the claimant had L5-S1 degenerative disc disease with a central disc bulge, and that most of the claimant’s symptoms were on the right side. The physician also reported the claimant suffered from a “defect in the pars articularis and spodylolisthesis on the left side which preceded the industrial injury.” Finally, the physician reported the claimant was experiencing lower extremity paresthesia because of a B-12 deficiency. The physician assigned a 19 percent whole person impairment rating based on the degenerative disorder of the spine and lost range of motion.
In May 1998 the claimant was examined by Dr. Donner. The claimant gave a history of increased back pain and bilateral leg and foot pain. The claimant also reported “constant tingling below his knees in both extremities.” Dr. Donner opined the claimant’s condition was “probably related to a Pars defect on the left at the L5 level,” and recommended reopening of the claim for purposes of obtaining an MRI. The claimant filed a petition to reopen based on Dr. Donner’s report.
At the hearing, the claimant testified he experienced symptoms of increased back pain and reduced mobility beginning in October 1997. The claimant did not associate the increased symptoms with any post-MMI employment, including a period of time when he delivered newspapers.
The ALJ concluded the claimant failed to prove that his worsened symptoms are causally connected to the industrial injury. In support, the ALJ noted that Dr. Donner attributed the worsened condition to the pars defect, and that this defect existed prior to the industrial injury. The ALJ also found the paresthesia of the claimant’s lower extremities was probably due to a B-12 deficiency and not the industrial injury. Finally, the ALJ noted the absence of “persuasive medical evidence” that the worsened condition was caused by the injury rather than the claimant’s post-MMI activities.
On review, the claimant contends the ALJ erred in finding that he failed to prove a worsened condition sufficient to justify reopening the claim. In support, the claimant cites his own testimony concerning increased pain and decreased functioning, and Dr. Donner’s report. The claimant argues this evidence is essentially unrefuted. We disagree.
In order to grant a petition to reopen based on a worsened condition the ALJ was required to find the claimant proved there was a change in his physical condition causally connected to the original compensable injury. Chavez v. Industrial Commission, 714 P.2d 1328 (Colo.App. 1985); § 8-43-201, C.R.S., 1998. The question of whether the claimant proved the requisite causal relationship was one of fact for determination by the ALJ. City of Durango v. Dunagan, 939 P.2d 496 (Colo.App. 1997).
Because the issue is factual in nature, we must uphold the ALJ’s order if supported by substantial evidence in the record. Section 8-43-301(8), C.R.S. 1998. In applying this standard, we must defer to the ALJ’s resolution of conflicts in the evidence, her credibility determinations, and the plausible inferences she drew from the evidence. Metro Moving and Storage Co. v. Gussert, 914 P.2d 411 (Colo.App. 1995). It is the ALJ’s sole province to assess the persuasive effect of medical evidence concerning the issue of causation. Rockwell International v. Turnbull, 802 P.2d 1182 (Colo.App. 1990). The ALJ need not credit medical testimony even if it is “unrebutted.” Cary v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 867 P.2d 117 (Colo.App. 1993).
Here, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that the claimant failed to prove the requisite causal relationship. As the ALJ recognized, Dr. Donner attributed the claimant’s increased symptoms to the pars defect. However, as shown by the February 1996 report of the treating physician, the pars defect predated the industrial injury. Similarly, the claimant’s paresthesia was attributed to a chemical deficiency unrelated to the industrial injury. Thus, the ALJ was not required to find that the claimant’s increased symptoms were caused by the injury rather than his preexisting conditions. Similarly, the ALJ recognized the claimant was required to perform substantial physical activity delivering newspapers, and the claimant’s increase in symptoms did not occur until after he left this job.
It is true the evidence in the record could support a finding that the claimant’s increased symptoms were causally related to the industrial injury. However, the ALJ resolved conflicts in the evidence against the claimant, and this record affords no basis for interfering with the ALJ’s inferences. Ackerman v. Hilton’s Mechanical Men, Inc., 914 P.2d 524 (Colo.App. 1996).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated November 10, 1998, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
____________________________________ David Cain
____________________________________ Robert M. Socolofsky
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 28, 1999 to the following parties:
Bruce A. Farmer, 2236 E. Main St., #418, Cortez, CO 81321-4263
Advanced Component Systems, 1201 S. Boulder Rd., Lafayette, CO 80026-2029
Ragn Buchanan, CIGNA Insurance Companies, P.O. Box 2941, Greenwood Village, CO 80150-0141
Samuel H. Collins, Esq., 155 S. Madison St., Ste. 330, Denver, CO 80209 (For Claimant)
J. Anthony Ogden, Esq., 4582 S. Ulster St., Ste. 906, Denver, CO 80237 (For Respondents)
By: A. Pendroy