W.C. No. 4-476-897Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
September 21, 2001
FINAL ORDER
The pro se claimant seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Stuber (ALJ) which determined the claimant failed to prove she suffered a compensable skin rash and, therefore, denied and dismissed the claim for workers’ compensation benefits. We affirm.
The claimant worked for the employer from March 1973 to January 8, 1982. The ALJ found the claimant disclosed on a preemployment questionnaire that she received medical treatment in 1969 for a skin rash on her neck.
In October 2000, claimant alleged a work-related skin rash affecting her face, arms, neck and hands. After reviewing a volume of medical records, the ALJ found that neither the employer’s medical records nor the medical records submitted by the claimant contained sufficient evidence of causal relationship between the rash and the claimant’s employment. In so doing, the ALJ credited Dr. Jacobs’ independent medical examination report in which he ruled out any causal connection between the rash and the employment. The ALJ also relied on evidence the claimant experienced episodic rashes for years after the employment ended.
The claimant’s petition to review contains no specific allegations of error. Instead, the claimant requested that we “review [her] records and [her] doctor’s statements.” The claimant also requested that we “reevaluate” Dr. Jacobs statement that her skin rash is not work-related. The claimant challenges Dr. Jacobs’ opinions on grounds he is not familiar with the chemicals used by the employer.
The claimant has not filed a brief in support of the petition to review. Consequently, the effectiveness of our review is limited. Ortiz v. Industrial Commission, 734 P.2d 642 (Colo.App. 1986).
The claimant bears the burden to prove a causal connection between her medical condition and the hazards of the employment. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 989 P.2d 251 (Colo.App. 1999). Whether the claimant has sustained her burden of proof is a question of fact for resolution by the ALJ. Coven v. Industrial Commission, 694 P.2d 366 (Colo.App. 1984).
Our authority to review the ALJ’s order is defined in §8-43-301(8), C.R.S. 2001. 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.
We have reviewed the record and the ALJ’s findings of fact. The ALJ’s findings are sufficient to permit appellate review, and reflect the ALJ’s consideration of the applicable law. See Section 8-41-301(1)(c), C.R.S. 2001.
The claimant has not provided a transcript of the hearing on June 4, 2001. See § 8-43-301(2), C.R.S. 2001. 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, the substantial evidence standard requires that we defer to the ALJ’s credibility determinations and his assessment of the sufficiency and probative weight of the medical evidence. City of Durango v. Dunagan, 939 P.2d 496 (Colo.App. 1997); Rockwell International v. Turnbull, 802 P.2d 1182 (Colo.App. 1990). Therefore, we decline the claimant’s request that we substitute our judgment for that of the ALJ concerning the weight to be afforded Dr. Jacobs’ opinions and the various medical records she submitted.
Moreover, the ALJ’s factual determinations support the conclusion that there was not a preponderance of evidence to establish a causal connection between the industrial injury and her skin rash. Therefore, the ALJ did not err in denying the claim for workers’ compensation benefits.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED the ALJ’s order dated June 20, 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. 2001. 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 September 21, 2001 to the following parties:
Linda Price, 1008 S. Zeno Way, Aurora, CO 80017
Nick Butler, Gates Rubber Company, P. O. Box 5887, Denver, CO 80217
Conni Rivera, GAB Robins North America, Inc., P. O. Box 370750, Denver, CO 80237-0750
Lynn P. Lyon, Esq. and Sarah K. Downey, Esq., 999 18th St., #3100, Denver, CO 80202 (For Respondent)
BY: A. Pendroy