W.C. No. 4-138-048Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
September 21, 1995
FINAL ORDER
The respondents seek review of an order of Chief Administrative Law Judge Felter (ALJ). The respondents contend that the ALJ erroneously awarded medical benefits, because there is not substantial evidence that the claimant’s need for further treatment of a bladder dysfunction is causally related to the claimant’s industrial injury. We disagree, and therefore, affirm.
In a report dated May 11, 1994, Dr. Schmidt opined that the claimant’s “pre-existing bladder problems were aggravated by her industrial back injury of 6/3/92.” The ALJ found Dr. Schmidt’s May 11 opinion to be the “most compelling” medical evidence in the record. The ALJ also credited the claimant’s testimony and Dr. Magoun’s opinion that “it was quite probable that the low back injury which [the claimant] suffered is responsible for the [claimant’s] bladder infection.” Consequently, the ALJ ordered the respondents to provide reasonable and necessary treatment of the claimant’s bladder dysfunction.
We first reject the respondent’s contention that the ALJ failed to resolve the conflict between Dr. Schmidt’s May 11, 1994 report and Dr. Schmidt’s subsequent deposition testimony. The ALJ explicitly resolved the conflict by finding that Dr. Schmidt did not “repudiate” his previous opinions during the deposition. Finding of Fact 5.
Because this determination reflects a plausible interpretation of Dr. Schmidt’s testimony, it must be upheld. Tr. pp. 20, 21; Suetrack USA v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 902 P.2d 854 (Colo.App. 94CA0094, February 9, 1995); CAN-USA Construction, Inc. v. Gerber, 767 P.2d 765 (Colo.App. 1988) rev’d on other grounds at 783 P.2d 269 (1989) (the ALJ’s oral findings may be considered to interpret the ALJ’s written findings). Moreover, Dr. Schmidt’s May 11 opinion supports the ALJ’s finding that the claimant sustained her burden to prove that her bladder dysfunction is causally related to the back injury.
Similarly, we reject the respondents’ contention that the ALJ failed to resolve the conflict between Dr. Magoun’s July 19, 1993 and February 15, 1994 reports. The ALJ resolved the conflict by crediting Dr. Magoun’s February 15, 1994 opinion which suggests a correlation between the back injury and the claimant’s bladder infection. Tr. p. 22.
The respondents’ arguments notwithstanding, the ALJ’s credibility determinations adequately articulate how he resolved the conflict. In any event, the ALJ was not required to explain his resolution of the conflict See Regional Transportation District v. Jackson, 805 P.2d 1190 (Colo.App. 1991); Wells v. Del Norte School District C-7, 753 P.2d 770 (Colo.App. 1987).
The respondents’ remaining arguments concerning Dr. Magoun’s opinion are unpersuasive. Consequently, insofar as the respondents contend that there is no medical evidence to support the ALJ’s pertinent findings of fact, they are mistaken.
Finally, the respondents’ incorrectly assert that the claimant was required to present expert medical testimony to establish the requisite causal connection. To the contrary, expert medical testimony is neither necessary nor conclusive concerning the cause of the claimant’s condition Rockwell International v. Turnbull, 802 P.2d 1182 (Colo.App. 1990). Moreover, although a medical opinion is to be based upon “reasonable medical probability,” the claimant need only establish a “reasonable probability” that the injury is the proximate cause of her need for further treatment. See Ringsby Truck Lines, Inc. v. Industrial Commission, 30 Colo. App. 224, 491 P.2d 106 (1971).
Here, the ALJ credited the claimant’s testimony that she did not experience incontinence until after the industrial injury, and that her bladder problems worsened with increased back pain. Tr. pp. 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14. Regardless of the respondents’ arguments, this testimony constitutes substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s finding of a causal connection between the claimant’s industrial injury and the need for further treatment. Tr. pp. 15, 23, 24; Savio House v. Dennis, 665 P.2d 141
(Colo.App. 1983). Therefore, the respondents have failed to establish grounds which afford us a basis to set aside the ALJ’s order.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated March 21, 1995, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
____________________________________ David Cain
____________________________________ Kathy E. Dean
NOTICE
This Order is final unless an action to modify or vacate this Order iscommenced in the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2 East 14th Avenue, Denver, CO80203, by filing a petition for review with the court, with service of acopy of the petition upon the Industrial Claim Appeals Office and allother parties, within twenty (20) days after the date this Order ismailed, pursuant to section 8-43-301(10) and 307, C.R.S. (1995 Cum.Supp.).
Copies of this decision were mailed September 21, 1995 to the following parties:
Susan P. Pippenger, 2729 South Sherman, Englewood, CO 80110
T R. Engraving, 2535 17th St., Denver, CO 80211
Continental Divide Ins. Co., Attn: Terry Stevens, Adjuster, 9290 W. Dodge Rd., Omaha, NE 68114
Karen R. Wells, Esq., 3900 E. Mexico, Ave., Ste. 1000, Denver, CO 80210 (For the Respondents)
Douglas R. Phillips, Esq., 155 S. Madison, Ste., 330, Denver, CO 80209 (For the Claimant)
BY: _______________________