IN RE GUERRERO, W.C. No. 4-197-686 (8/5/96)


IN THE MATTER OF THE CLAIM OF JOE GUERRERO, Claimant, v. PRUTCH’S GARAGE DOOR CO., INC., Employer, and STATE FARM FIRE CASUALTY Insurers, Respondents.

W.C. No. 4-197-686Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
August 5, 1996

FINAL ORDER

The claimant filed a Petition for Review of a final order of Administrative Law Judge Henk (ALJ) which denied and dismissed his claim for workers’ compensation benefits. We affirm.

The ALJ found that the claimant’s testimony that he injured his right shoulder at work on October 28, 1993, was inconsistent with the evidence presented by the employer. The ALJ resolved the conflict based upon her decision to credit the testimony of the employer’s witnesses. Therefore, the ALJ determined that the claimant failed to sustain his burden to prove that his injury arose out of and in the course of his employment.

The claimant’s Petition for Review alleges that the ALJ’s conclusions of law and denial of benefits are contrary to the facts, and the applicable law. However, the claimant did not file a brief in support of his petition. Consequently, the effectiveness of our review is limited. See Oxford Chemicals, Inc. v. Richardson, 782 P.2d 843 (Colo.App. 1989) Ortiz v. Industrial Commission, 734 P.2d 642 (Colo.App. 1986).

We have reviewed the ALJ’s findings of fact and the record. The ALJ’s findings are supported by substantial evidence in the testimony she found persuasive. Further, we may not substitute our judgment for that of the ALJ in assessing the credibility of the witnesses or the probative value of conflicting testimony Martinez v. Regional Transportation District, 832 P.2d 1060
(Colo.App. 1992). Therefore, we must uphold the ALJ’s finding that the claimant failed to sustain his burden to prove a causal connection between his employment and the injury. See Prestige Homes, Inc. v. Legouffe, 658 P.2d 850 (Colo. 1983).

Moreover, the failure to establish a causal connection between the injury and the conditions of employment, is fatal to a claim for compensation. Section 8-41-301(1)(b), C.R.S. (1995 Cum. Supp.); City of Boulder v. Streeb, 706 P.2d 786
(Colo. 1985). Consequently, the ALJ did not err in denying the claim.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated September 20, 1995, is affirmed.

INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL ____________________________________ Kathy E. Dean ____________________________________ Bill Whitacre

NOTICE
This Order is final unless an action to modify orvacate this Order is commenced in the Colorado Court of Appeals,2 East 14th Avenue, Denver, CO 80203, by filing a petition forreview 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 this Order is mailed,pursuant to section 8-43-301(10) and 307, C.R.S. (1995 Cum.Supp.).

Copies of this decision were mailed August 5, 1996 to the following parties:

Joe A. Guerrero, 23 Macalister, Pueblo, CO 81001

Prutch’s Garage Door Co., Inc., 417 W. Abriendo Ave., Pueblo, CO 81004-1869

Carol Riggs, State Farm Fire Casualty, 4380 S. Syracuse, Ste. 200, Denver, CO 80237

Carol A. Finley, Esq., 111 S. Tejon St., Ste. 200, Colorado Springs, CO 80903 (For the Respondents)

Francis K. Culkin, Esq., 1120 Lincoln St., Ste. 711, Denver, CO 80203-2138 (For the Claimant)

BY: _______________________