W.C. No. 4-614-162.Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
July 13, 2005.
FINAL ORDER
The claimant seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Henk (ALJ) which determined the claimant failed to prove a compensable injury and, therefore, denied the claim for workers’ compensation benefits. We affirm.
The claimant alleged she was injured on April 25, 2004 while walking down the south hall of the respondents’ nursing facility when she caught a bump on the carpet causing a sharp pain and pop in the left knee.
Based on the evidence presented at a hearing on September 16, 2004, the ALJ found the carpet location where the claimant was allegedly injured does not have a bump in it. The ALJ also found the claimant’s testimony concerning the alleged injury was not consistent with the medical records and evidence presented by the respondents. Therefore, the ALJ rejected the claimant’s testimony.
Instead, the ALJ found the claimant was injured while engaged in the simple act of walking which could have produced similar symptoms whether at work or in an activity outside of work. Therefore, the ALJ determined the claimant failed to establish a direct causal relationship between the conditions of the employment and the injury for which she sought benefits. Under these circumstances, the ALJ dismissed and denied the claim.
The claimant’s Petition to Review contains general allegations of error as listed in § 8-43-301(8), C.R.S. 2004. The claimant also contends the ALJ erroneously relied on a taped interview of the claimant, because the claimant objected to admission of the interview transcript and the transcript was not admitted to the record. However, the claimant has not filed a brief in support of the Petition. Consequently, the effectiveness of our review is limited. Ortiz v. Industrial Commission, 734 P.2d 642
(Colo.App. 1986).
To recover workers’ compensation benefits, the claim must prove she suffered a compensable injury. A compensable injury is one which arises out of and in the course of employment. Section 8-41-301(1)(b), C.R.S. 2004. The “arising out of” test is one of causation. It requires that the injury have its origin in an employee’s work-related functions, and be sufficiently related thereto so as to be considered part of the employee’s service to the employer. In this regard, there is no presumption that an injury which occurs in the course of a worker’s employment arises out of the employment. Finn v. Industrial Commission, 165 Colo. 106, 437 P.2d 542 (1968); see also, Industrial Commission v. London Lancashire Indemnity Co., 135 Colo. 372, 311 P.2d 705 (1957) (mere fact that the decedent fell to his death on the employer’s premises did not give rise to presumption that the fall arose out of and in course of employment). Rather, it is the claimant’s burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that there is a direct causal relationship between the employment and the injuries. Section 8-43-201, C.R.S. 2004 Ramsdell v. Horn, 781 P.2d 150 (Colo.App. 1989).
The determination of whether there is a sufficient “nexus” or causal relationship between the claimant’s employment and the injury is one of fact which the ALJ must determine based on the totality of the circumstances. In Re Question Submitted by the United States Court of Appeals, 759 P.2d 17 (Colo. 1988); Moorhead Machinery Boiler Co. v. Del Valle, 934 P.2d 861 (Colo.App. 1996). We must uphold the ALJ’s determinations if supported by substantial evidence in the record. Section 8-43-301(8), C.R.S. 2004. Under this standard, we must defer to the ALJ’s credibility determinations, her resolution of conflicts in the evidence, and her assessment of the sufficiency and probative weight of the evidence. Arenas v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 8 P.3d. 558 (Colo.App. 2000); Rockwell International v. Turnbull, 802 P.2d 1182
(Colo.App. 1990).
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 hearing on September 16. Under these circumstances we are required to presume the ALJ’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence in the record Nova v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 754 P.2d 800 (Colo.App. 1988). Further, in the absence of a hearing transcript, the record is legally insufficient to establish that the interview transcript was improperly considered by the ALJ. See Hanna v. Print Expediters Inc., 77 P.3d 863
(Colo.App. 2003) (burden on appealing party to provide record justifying reversal).
Nevertheless, there is also substantial evidence in the medical records of Dr. Lynch and the transcript of the claimant’s tape interview (Respondents’ Hearing Exhibit J) to support the ALJ’s pertinent findings. Moreover, the ALJ’s factual determinations support a conclusion the claimant failed to prove she was injured as a result of the employment. Consequently, the ALJ did not err in dismissing the claim and the claimant has failed to establish grounds which afford us a basis to disturb the ALJ’s order.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated November 17, 2004, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
____________________ David Cain
____________________ Kathy E. Dean
Lupe Perez, Greeley, CO, Bonnell Good Samaritan, Greeley, CO, Kelly Frank, Sentry Insurance, Stevens Point, WI, Britton Morrell, Esq., Greeley, CO, (For Claimant).
John M. Lebsack, Esq., Denver, CO, (For Respondents).