W.C. No. 4-107-390Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
May 15, 2001
FINAL ORDER
The claimant seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Schulman (ALJ) which permitted the respondents to withdraw admissions of liability retroactively, and denied claims for additional workers’ compensation benefits. We affirm.
The matter came before the ALJ for hearing on March 21 and May 1, 2000. The ALJ’s pertinent findings of fact may be summarized as follows. In 1991 the claimant suffered a low back injury while working at Atrium Associates (Atrium). On February 24, 1993, Dr. Rabb placed the claimant at maximum medical improvement with “very minimal” permanent impairment. In 1994 the claimant reinjured her low back while working for another employer. Subsequently, the claimant was involved in several motor vehicle accidents. On November 4, 1998, the claimant alleged numerous injuries resulting from an arrest on November 2, 1998.
A 1996 MRI revealed a protruded/herniated disc at L5-S1. The claimant had not been diagnosed with a disc herniation prior to a 1996 motor vehicle accident.
On September 4, 1996, the claimant petitioned to reopen the claim on grounds of a worsening condition. The respondents voluntarily reopened the claim and filed admissions of liability for temporary and permanent disability benefits.
On conflicting evidence, the ALJ determined the claimant’s condition was not a natural progression of the 1991 industrial injury at Atrium. Instead, the ALJ found the claimant’s worsened condition was the result of the subsequent, intervening injuries. Further, the ALJ determined the respondents’ general admissions of liability dated July 10, 1997 and October 1, 1997, and final admission of liability dated February 9, 1999, were fraudulently induced by the claimant’s material misrepresentations concerning her injury history. Therefore, the ALJ granted the respondents retroactive relief from the admissions and denied the claimant’s requests for additional workers’ compensation benefits. The claimant timely appealed.
On appeal the claimant contends that the residual effects of the 1991 injury played a causative role in the subsequent injuries. Therefore, she argues that disability resulting from the subsequent injuries is compensable. The claimant also contends the record does not support the ALJ’s finding that the claimant fraudulently misrepresented her medical history.
Our authority to review the ALJ’s order is defined in §8-43-301(8), C.R.S. 2000. That statute precludes us from disturbing the ALJ’s order unless the ALJ’s findings of fact are insufficient to permit appellate review, the ALJ has not resolved conflicts in the evidence, the record does not support the ALJ’s findings, the findings do not support the order, or the order is not supported by the applicable law.
Where the claimant’s entitlement to workers’ compensation benefits is disputed, the claimant must prove a causal relationship between injury and condition for which medical benefits are sought. See §8-41-301(1)(c), C.R.S. 2000; Snyder v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 942 P.2d 1337 (Colo.App. 1997). Whether the claimant sustained her burden of proof is a question of fact for the ALJ. City of Durango v. Dunagan, 939 P.2d 496 (Colo.App. 1997). The ALJ’s factual determinations on this issue must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence and plausible inferences drawn from the record. We have no authority to substitute our judgment for that of the ALJ concerning the credibility of the witnesses, and we may not reweigh the evidence on appeal. City of Durango v. Dunagan, supra; Delta Drywall v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 868 P.2d 1155 (Colo.App. 1993).
We have reviewed the record and the ALJ’s findings of fact. The ALJ’s findings are sufficient to permit appellate review, and the findings indicate that the ALJ resolved conflicts in the evidence based upon her credibility determinations. See Riddle v. Ampex Corp., 839 P.2d 489 (Colo.App. 1992).
The claimant has not provided a transcript of the hearings. Under these circumstances, we must presume that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ’s findings of fact. See Nova v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 754 P.2d 800 (Colo.App. 1988). Furthermore, the ALJ’s findings support the conclusion the claimant failed to prove a causal connection between the employment and her worsened condition. Consequently, the findings support the order denying additional benefits. See City of Durango v. Dunagan, supra.
Finally, the ALJ’s findings support her determination that the claimant fraudulently misrepresented material facts concerning her history of injuries. Consequently, the claimant has failed to establish grounds for disturbing the ALJ’s order which granted the respondents’ request for retroactive relief from their admissions of liability. See Vargo v. Industrial Commission, 626 P.2d 1164 (Colo.App. 1981); cf. Lewis v. Scientific Supply Co., 897 P.2d 905 (Colo.App. 1995).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated February 15, 2001, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
____________________________________ Kathy E. Dean
____________________________________ 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 May 15, 2001 to the following parties:
Wendy Kratzer, 411 West Bijou, Colorado Springs, CO 80905
Atrium Associates, 3350 30th, Boulder, CO 80301
Michael J. Steiner, Esq., Colorado Compensation Insurance Authority d/b/a Pinnacol Assurance — Interagency Mail (For Respondents)
Joel M. Pollack, Esq., 999 18th St., #3100, Denver, CO 80202
BY: A. Pendroy