W.C. No. 4-259-571Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
August 26, 1996
FINAL ORDER
The pro se claimant seeks review of a final order of Administrative Law Judge Martinez (ALJ) which denied his claim for additional temporary disability benefits and additional medical benefits. We affirm.
The respondents admitted that the claimant suffered a compensable back injury, and voluntarily paid temporary total disability and medical benefits from June 28, 1995 through September 7, 1995. However, these benefits were terminated when the claimant’s treating physician, Dr. Woelfel, opined that the claimant had reached maximum medical improvement (MMI), and could return to work without any restrictions.
The claimant testified that, after August 10, 1995, he suffered additional back pain, headaches, knee pain and leg pain. However, the ALJ denied the claim for additional temporary total disability benefits because Dr. Woelfel found the claimant to be at MMI, and released him to return to work without restrictions. Moreover, the ALJ denied the claim for additional medical treatment because the claimant failed to prove that the need for such treatment, if any, was causally related to the back injury. The ALJ also determined that the claimant failed to identify any basis for requesting a change of physician for the purpose of providing additional treatment.
The claimant filed a petition to review, but has not submitted a brief in support of this petition. The petition itself indicates, in broad terms, that the claimant desires additional medical treatment. We perceive no error.
Generally speaking, once the authorized treating physician places the claimant at MMI, the ALJ may not authorize a change of physician except for the purpose of providing ongoing medical benefits after MMI. See Story v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 910 P.2d 80 (Colo.App. 1995). Here, the record amply supports the ALJ’s determination that Dr. Woelfel placed the claimant at MMI, and that she did not prescribe additional treatment. Thus, we perceive no basis on which the ALJ could have awarded additional medical treatment, and the order must be upheld. Section 8-43-301(8), C.R.S. (1995 Cum. Supp.).
Moreover, the question of whether the need for any additional treatment is related to the industrial injury is one of fact for resolution by the ALJ. F. R. Orr Construction v. Rinta, 717 P.2d 965 (Colo.App. 1985). The evidence cited by the ALJ in the order supports the determination that the claimant’s symptoms are unrelated to the industrial injury. Consequently, we may not interfere with the order on this basis. Section 8-43-301(8).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated February 26, 1996, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL ___________________________________ David Cain ___________________________________ Kathy E. Dean
NOTICE
This Order is final unless an action to modify orvacate the Order is commenced in the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2East 14th Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80203, by filing a petition toreview with the court, with service of a copy of the petitionupon 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. (1995 Cum.Supp.).
Copies of this decision were mailed August 26, 1996 to the following parties:
Michael S. Fulton, P.O. Box 7779, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96158
A B Asbestos Abatement, Inc., 635 W. White Ave., Grand Junction, CO 81505-7336
Colorado Compensation Insurance Authority, Attn: Curt Kriksciun, Esq. (Interagency Mail)
Scot Houska, Esq., 744 Horizon Ct., Ste. 360, Grand Junction, CO 81506 (For the Respondents)
By: _________________________