W.C. No. 4-650-577.Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
October 25, 2007.
FINAL ORDER
The claimant seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Cannici (ALJ) dated May 29, 2007, that denied and dismissed the claimant’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits. We affirm.
The ALJ’s pertinent findings of fact are as follows. The claimant worked for the employer as a drill hand. The claimant testified that on May 13, 2005, while helping crewmembers move a large pipe the pipe landed on his legs. Crewmembers removed the pipe from his legs and he returned to work. The claimant, following the accident, complained of swelling in his right and left legs, and pain in his chest. The employer referred the clamant for medical treatment to Dr. Smith. Dr. Smith noted that the mechanism of injury did not correlate with the findings from the physical examination. Dr. Smith referred the claimant to an emergency room where he was diagnosed with a deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Based on recurrent DVTs the claimant was diagnosed with a hypercoagulability disorder and directed to continue taking Coumadin. The discharge summary noted that the claimant would require life long anticoagulation medication for his condition. Dr. Henke conducted an independent medical examination and persuasively opined that the accident on May 13, 2005 did not cause his need for medical treatment but instead it was attributable to the claimant’s pre-existing hypercoagulability disorder. Dr. Henke also stated that the accident did not aggravate the claimant’s preexisting condition.
Page 2
The ALJ found that the claimant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the accident of May 13, 2005 caused his subsequent need for medical treatment. The ALJ determined that the claimant’s failure to control his pre-existing hypercoagulability disorder with Coumadin was the cause of his need for medical treatment. The ALJ concluded that the May 13, 2005 accident did not aggravate, accelerate, or combine with his pre-existing hypercoagulability condition to produce a need for medical treatment. Therefore, the ALJ denied and dismissed the claim for workers’ compensation benefits.
On appeal the petition to review contains only general allegations of error, derived from § 8-43-301(8), C.R.S. 2007. Moreover, the claimant has not filed a brief in support of his petition to review and, therefore, the effectiveness of our review is limited. Ortiz v. Industrial Commission, 734 P.2d 642 (Colo.App. 1986). However, we have reviewed the record and are unpersuaded that the ALJ erred.
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.
Under the substantial evidence standard of review it is the ALJ’s sole prerogative to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses and the probative value of the evidence. Delta Drywall v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 868 P.2d 1155 (Colo.App. 1993). We may not substitute our judgment for that of the ALJ unless the testimony the ALJ found persuasive is rebutted by such hard, certain evidence that it would be error as a matter of law to credit the testimony. Halliburton Services v. Miller, 720 P.2d 571 (Colo. 1986).
We also note that it is for the ALJ to assess the weight and credibility of expert medical testimony pertaining to the issue of causation. Rockwell International v. Turnbull, 802 P.2d 1182 (Colo.App. 1990). Furthermore, the ALJ may accept all, part, or none of the testimony of a medical expert. Colorado Springs Motors, Ltd. v. Industrial Commission, 165 Colo. 504, 441 P.2d 21 (1968). Moreover, we may not reweigh the evidence on review. See General Cable Co. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 878 P.2d 118 (Colo.App. 1994). Consequently, the existence of conflicting testimony or evidence that would support a contrary result does not provide a basis for setting aside the order. See Mountain Meadows Nursing Center v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 990 P.2d 1090 (Colo.App. 1999). See also, Dow Chemical Co. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office,
Page 3
843 P.2d 122 (Colo.App. 1992) (ALJ may credit one medical opinion to the exclusion of a contrary medical opinion).
The record here contains ample evidence supporting the ALJ’s findings. Dr. Henke, on whose opinion the ALJ expressly relied, stated that he strongly questioned any causal relationship of the claimant’s reported work-related injury to his ongoing DVT of the left lower extremity. Exhibit A at 7. Dr. Henke opined that he did not feel any reported work injury altered the claimant’s need for medical care for his ongoing DVT. Exhibit A at 8. Dr. Smith opined that the mechanism of the injury described by the claimant did not correlate with her findings following her physical examination of the claimant. Exhibit B at 2. These opinions constitute substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s findings. Those findings, in turn, support the ALJ’s conclusions that the claimant failed to carry his burden of showing that the incident on May 13, 2005, caused his subsequent need for medical treatment.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated May 29, 2007, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
____________________________________ Curt Kriksciun
____________________________________ Thomas Schrant
Page 4
JAMES PLANTE, 1235 26TH STREET, GREELEY, CO, (Claimant).
PATTERSON-UTI, INC., Attn: MARK CULLIFER, TX, (Employer).
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Attn: DARLENE MINOR, TX, (Insurer).
LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD P. MYERS, Attn: APRIL D. MOORE, ESQ., CO, (For Respondents).