W.C. No. 4-410-318Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
January 27, 2000
[1] FINAL ORDER
[2] The respondents seek review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Rumler (ALJ) which determined the claimant sustained three compensable injuries and awarded temporary total disability benefits commencing January 27, 1999, and continuing. We affirm.
[3] The ALJ found that the claimant sustained separate injuries to his knee and back on January 21, 1999, while employed as a laborer for the respondent-employer. The ALJ further found the claimant sustained a compensable eye injury on January 26, 1999.
[4] The ALJ determined the claimant was “laid off” on January 26, 1999, and could “not continue to do his regular work because he could not see due to his eye injury.” In addition, the ALJ found the claimant was “suffering from the effects of his low back and knee injuries.” Under these circumstances, the ALJ awarded temporary total disability benefits commencing January 27. The ALJ also assessed penalties of three dollars per day for two days based on the claimant’s failure to file a written report of injury until January 28, 1999.
[5] The respondents filed a timely petition to review the ALJ’s order. However, the petition contains only general allegations of error concerning the sufficiency of the evidence and the adequacy of the findings. The respondents did not file a brief in support of the petition to review. Consequently, the effectiveness of our appellate review is limited.
[6] The question of whether the claimant proved the work-related injuries was one of fact for determination by the ALJ. City of Durango v. Dunagan, 939 P.2d 496 (Colo.App. 1997). Because the issue is factual in nature, we must uphold the ALJ’s order if supported by substantial evidence in the record. Section 8-43-301(8), C.R.S. 1999. In applying this standard of review we must defer to the ALJ’s resolution of conflicts in the evidence, her credibility determinations, and the plausible inferences she drew from the evidence. Metro Moving and Storage Co. v. Gussert, 914 P.2d 411 (Colo.App. 1995).
[7] We have reviewed the transcript and the documentary evidence. The claimant’s testimony, which the ALJ credited, fully supports the determination that the claimant’s injuries are work-related. Therefore, there is no basis for interfering with the order insofar as it concerns compensability.
[8] Similarly, the record supports the ALJ’s determination that the claimant was entitled to temporary total disability benefits commencing January 27. The claimant testified that as of January 26 the effects of the industrial injuries were interfering with his ability to perform his usual duties. Further, the claimant testified he would have been unable to return to his regular duties after January 26. (Tr. pp. 27-28). This testimony was corroborated by the imposition of medical restrictions. Thus, the claimant proved a compensable disability. Lymburn v. Symbios Logic, 952 P.2d 831 (Colo.App. 1997).
[9] Further, the claimant proved that his post-separation wage loss was caused by the industrial injuries. A claimant need not prove that the work-related disability is the sole cause of a wage loss, as long as the wage loss is to some degree caused by the injury. Horton v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 942 P.2d 1209
(Colo.App. 1996). Here, the ALJ implicitly determined that the claimant was “laid off” for economic reasons. This conclusion is fully supported by the testimony of the employer’s witness. (Tr. p. 40). Therefore, the claimant was not “at fault” for his separation, and was entitled to continuing temporary disability benefits. See PDM Molding, Inc. v. Stanberg, 890 P.2d 542 (Colo. 1995); Schlage Lock v. Lahr, 870 P.2d 615 (Colo.App. 1993) Hendricks v. Keebler Co., W.C. No. 4-373-392 (June 11, 1999).
[10] Finally, the ALJ’s imposition of penalties was fully within her discretion under § 8-43-102(1)(a), C.R.S. 1999 (employee may
lose up to one day’s compensation for each day the employee fails to report the injury in writing).
[11] IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated July 8, 1999, is affirmed.
[12] INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
[13] ___________________________________ David Cain
[14] ___________________________________ Kathy E. Dean
NOTICE
[15] This Order is final unless an action to modify or vacate the Order is commenced in the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2 East 14th Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80203, by filing a petition to review with the court, with service of a copy of the petition upon the Industrial Claim Appeals Office and all other parties, within twenty (20) days after the date the Order was mailed, pursuant to §§ 8-43-301(10) and 307, C.R.S. 1999.
[16] Copies of this decision were mailed January 27, 2000 to the following parties:
[17] Alfredo Ramirez, 12335 Albrook Dr., #2601, Denver, CO 80239
[18] Etkin Construction Company, 8201 Southpark Ln., Littleton, CO 80120
[19] Indemnity Insurance Company of North America, P.O. Box 2941, Englewood, CO 80150
[20] Robert P. Koehler, Esq., 681 Grant St., Denver, CO 80203 (For Claimant)
[21] W. Berkeley Mann, Jr., Esq., 4582 S. Ulster St., #906, Denver, CO 80237 (For Respondents)
[22] BY: A. Pendroy