W.C. No. 4-271-819Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
January 29, 2001
FINAL ORDER
The respondent seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Jones (ALJ) insofar as it awarded permanent total disability benefits. The respondent argues the ALJ’s findings of fact are not sufficient to support appellate review, and that the ALJ failed to resolve conflicts in the evidence. We affirm.
The claimant sustained bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and has residual pain in both upper extremities. The claimant also was diagnosed with depression. Crediting the claimant’s testimony, the psychiatric opinion of Dr. Pock, and implicitly relying on the opinions of the claimant’s vocational expert, the ALJ found the claimant is unable to earn wages in the same or other employment. Consequently, the ALJ awarded permanent total disability benefits.
On review, the respondent argues the ALJ’s findings of fact are not sufficient to support appellate review, and the ALJ failed to resolve pertinent conflicts in the evidence. We find no error.
The claimant is entitled to permanent total disability benefits if she proves the effects of the industrial injury render her unable to earn wages in the same or other employment. Section 8-40-201(16.5)(a), C.R.S. 2000. The question of whether the claimant has proved permanent total disability is one of fact for determination by the ALJ. In resolving the issue, the ALJ may consider the effects of the industrial injury in light of the claimant’s “human factors.” These factors include the claimant’s education, work experience, ability, and general physical and mental condition. The overall objective is to determine whether employment is reasonably available to the claimant given his or her particular circumstances. Weld County School District RE-12 v. Bymer, 955 P.2d 550 (Colo. 1998); Holly Nursing Care Center v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 992 P.2d 701 (Colo.App. 1999).
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. 2000. This standard of review requires us to defer to the ALJ’s resolution of conflicts in the evidence, her credibility determinations, and the plausible inferences she drew from the record. Weld County School District RE-12 v. Bymer, supra. Insofar as there is a conflict between experts, it is for the ALJ to assess the weight and credibility of the competing opinions. Rockwell International v. Turnbull, 802 P.2d 1182 (Colo.App. 1990). To the extent an expert’s testimony is internally inconsistent, the ALJ may resolve the inconsistency by crediting none, or only a portion of the testimony. Johnson v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 973 P.2d 624 (Colo.App. 1997).
Further, an ALJ is not held to a standard of absolute clarity in expressing findings of fact and conclusions of law. Rather, an order is adequate to support review if the ALJ makes findings sufficient for us to ascertain the basis of the award. There is no obligation for the ALJ to address every inference raised by the evidence, nor any obligation explicitly to reject evidence which the ALJ finds to be unpersuasive. Moreover, we may consider findings which are necessarily implied by the ALJ’s order Magnetic Engineering, Inc. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 5 P.3d 385 (Colo.App. 2000).
The respondent’s argument notwithstanding, we have no difficulty in ascertaining the basis of the ALJ’s award. The ALJ explicitly credited the claimant’s testimony concerning ongoing pain caused by the injury and the severe limitations resulting from this pain. (Finding of Fact 4). The ALJ also credited the testimony of Dr. Pock that the claimant has residual psychiatric impairment which, when added to the claimant’s permanent physical restrictions, renders her unemployable. (Finding of Fact 19). Finally, the ALJ implicitly credited the testimony and opinions of the claimant’s vocational expert that very few jobs remain available to the claimant, and her “competitive disadvantage” renders her unable to obtain those jobs. (Findings of Fact 1, 22-23, White report, p. 16).
Similarly, the ALJ’s order is not deficient because it fails to resolve conflicts in the evidence. Although there was substantial conflict between the vocational opinions expressed by the claimant’s expert and the respondent’s expert, the conflict was implicitly and necessarily resolved in favor of the claimant. We note the testimony of the claimant’s vocational expert appears to conflict with his report concerning whether or not mental impairment was a factor in his opinion. However, to the extent there is any inconsistency, the ALJ resolved it by crediting Dr. Pock’s opinion that the claimant suffers from depression which impairs her employability. It is also true the respondent presented expert medical evidence tending to cast doubt upon the extent of the claimant’s physical and mental impairment. However, the ALJ was not persuaded by this evidence, and he was not obliged to discuss this evidence in detail. Magnetic Engineering, Inc. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, supra. Insofar as the respondent makes other arguments, we find them to be without merit.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated February 14, 2000, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
____________________________________ David Cain
____________________________________ Robert M. Socolofsky
NOTICE
This Order is final unless an action to modify or vacate this Order is commenced 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. 2000. The appealing party must serve a copy of the petition upon all other parties, including the Industrial Claim Appeals Office, which may be served by mail at 1515 Arapahoe, Tower 3, Suite 350, Denver, CO 80202.
Copies of this decision were mailed January 29, 2001 to the following parties:
Julia Gutierrez, 6500 E. 88th Ave., Space 281, Henderson, CO 80640
Provenant Health Partners, 1601 Lowell Blvd., Denver, CO 80204-1545
Kathy Lindgren, Provenant Health Partners Alternative Insurance Management Services, 1115 Elkton Dr., #400, Colorado Springs, CO 80907
Elsa Martinez Tenreiro, Esq., 700 Broadway, #1101, Denver, CO 80203 (For Claimant)
Karen R. Wells, Esq., and Anne Smith Myers, Esq., 3900 E. Mexico, #1000, Denver, CO 80210 (For Respondents)
BY: A. Pendroy