W.C. No. 4-726-134.Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
April 8, 2008.
FINAL ORDER
The claimant seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Walsh (ALJ) dated December 19, 2007, that denied and dismissed the claim for compensation. We affirm.
A hearing was held on the sole issue of the compensability of the claimant’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits. Following the hearing the ALJ entered findings of fact that for the purposes of this order may be summarized as follows. On June 28, 2007, the claimant was working for the respondent employer in its receiving area. The claimant alleged that a co-worker, Celia Adams, hit him with a cart and that he was injured as a result. The incident was recorded and apparently the video recording was played at the hearing. Following his review of the videotape, the ALJ found that the claimant stood in the path of the cart and watched as Adams approached him “at a very slow speed.” The ALJ concluded that the incident was “staged” by the claimant and that the claimant did not sustain any injury as a result of being hit by the cart. In this regard the ALJ also found that medical examinations of the claimant failed to reveal any “objective evidence” to support his subjective complaints of injury. Based upon these factual findings, the ALJ denied and dismissed the claim.
The claimant appealed and appears to argue that the ALJ was compelled as a matter of law to conclude that the claimant sustained a compensable injury that resulted in a need for medical treatment. We are unpersuaded that the ALJ erred.
Page 2
Where the claimant’s entitlement to benefits is disputed, the claimant has the burden to prove a causal relationship between a work-related injury or disease and the condition for which benefits or compensation are sought. Snyder v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 942 P.2d 1337
(Colo.App. 1997). Whether the claimant sustained his burden of proof is a factual question for resolution by the ALJ. City of Durango v. Dunagan, 939 P.2d 496 (Colo.App. 1997). The ALJ’s factual determinations 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 witnesses and we may not reweigh the evidence on appeal Id.; Delta Drywall v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 868 P.2d 1155
(Colo.App. 1993). Substantial evidence is that quantum of probative evidence which a rational fact finder would accept as adequate to support a conclusion without regard to the existence of conflicting evidence. Durocher v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 905 P.2d 4
(Colo.App. 1995).
Under this standard of review it is the ALJ’s sole prerogative to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses and the probative value of the evidence. We may not substitute our judgment for that of the ALJ unless the inferences drawn by the ALJ are rebutted by such hard, certain evidence that it could be said that the ALJ committed error as a matter of law. Halliburton Services v. Miller, 720 P.2d 571 (Colo. 1986). The existence of evidence which, if credited, might permit a contrary result also affords no basis for relief on appeal. Cordova v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 55 P.3d 186 (Colo.App. 2002).
Here, the ALJ relied in part upon a video tape of the “incident” that the claimant contends caused him injury at work. The ALJ viewed the tape and drew the inference that the claimant had “staged” the incident in order to make it appear that an accident occurred and that he was injured. In our view, the inferences to be drawn from viewing a video tape are within the province of the ALJ and come within his role as fact finder with the responsibility to weigh the probative value of the evidence. In reviewing such evidence and determining, in effect, what the video tape actually “depicts” the ALJ is engaged in his role of assessing the evidence. The question of the interpretation of the video tape is largely factual in nature, and we review the ALJ’s determinations in this regard accordingly, applying the deferential substantial evidence standard. Here, we have reviewed the video tape relied upon by the ALJ and we note that not only are his inferences reasonable ones from that evidence, but that the video tape nearly compels the conclusion reached by the ALJ. As noted, of course, it is not our role to reweigh the evidence and we do not do so here. However, the actions depicted on the video tape amply support the ALJ’s findings, which in turn support his conclusion that no compensable injury occurred.
Page 3
In this respect we note that the record does not contain a transcript of the hearing and therefore we are unable to ascertain whether the claimant presented any argument or objection to the admission of the video tape, either with regards to its foundation, authentication of the evidence, or its probative value. And, in the absence of a transcript of the hearing we must presume that the ALJ’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence. Nova v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 754 P.2d 800 (Colo.App. 1988). For the same reasons we presume that the video tape was properly authenticated as evidence, that a proper foundation was established, and that the ALJ did not abuse his discretion in admitting and considering the evidence. Because the ALJ’s factual findings are supported by the record and because he correctly applied the relevant legal principles we perceive no reversible error in his order. The ALJ weighed the evidence and was unpersuaded that the claimant had sustained a compensable injury in an accident at work. We may not reweigh the evidence and usurp the fact finder’s function by reaching conclusions different from those drawn by the ALJ.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated December 19, 2007, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
_____________________________ Curt Kriksciun
_____________________________ Thomas Schrant
Page 4
JECKONIAS MURAGARA, 814 CHAPMAN DR APT #12, COLO SPRINGS, CO, (Claimant)
SEARS ROEBUCK CO, Attn: PERSONEL, SPRINGS, CO, (Employer)
ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, Attn: SEDGWICK CMS, C/O: JASON BOCK, LEXINGTON, KY, (Insurer)
THOMAS POLLART MILLER LLC, Attn: ATTORNEY AT LAW, C/O: BENJAMIN P KRAMER, GREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO, (For Respondents)
Page 1