W.C. No. 4-538-161.Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
September 16, 2003.
FINAL ORDER
The claimant seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Stuber (ALJ) which determined the claimant failed to prove a compensable injury and, therefore, denied and dismissed the claim for workers’ compensation benefits. We affirm.
The claimant alleged a left meniscal tear on March 1, 2002, when he struck his patella on the metal pin of a scaffold. Crediting the testimony of Dr. Olson, the ALJ found the claimant failed to prove the frontal blow to his knee caused a disability or the complex meniscal tear shown on an April 2002 MRI. Consequently, the ALJ denied and dismissed the claim for workers’ compensation benefits. The claimant timely appealed.
The claimant’s Petition to Review contains general allegations of error, see § 8-43-301(8), C.R.S. 2002. However, the claimant did not file 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).
We also note that the claimant’s Designation of Record includes the Division of Administrative Hearing file and the Division of Workers’ Compensation file. The record transmitted to us on appeal apparently does not include the complete Division of Workers’ Compensation file and there is no evidence in the record which tends to suggest the claimant requested the ALJ to consider the entire Division of Workers’ Compensation file as part of the evidentiary record for the hearing. See City of Boulder v. Dinsmore, 902 P.2d 925 (Colo.App. 1995); Rules of Procedure, Part VIII(A)(6), 7 Code Colo. Reg. 1101-3 at 22. Further, our review is limited to the evidentiary record before the ALJ, Consequently, we have not obtained or considered the Division of Workers’ Compensation file, but restricted our review to the record made at the hearing.
The Workers’ Compensation Act creates a distinction between the terms “accident” and “injury.” The term “accident” refers to an “unexpected, unusual, or undesigned occurrence.” Section 8-40-201(1), C.R.S. 2002. In contrast, an “injury” refers to the physical trauma caused by the accident. In other words, an “accident” is the cause and an “injury” is the result. City of Boulder v. Payne, 162 Colo. 345, 426 P.2d 194
(1967). No benefits flow to the victim of an industrial accident unless the accident results in a compensable “injury.” Compensable injuries are injuries which require medical treatment or cause disability. H H Warehouse v. Vicory, 805 P.2d 1167, 1169 (Colo.App. 1990). Subsequent Injury Fund v. State Compensation Insurance Authority, 768 P.2d 751
(Colo.App. 1988).
Our authority to review the ALJ’s order is defined in § 8-43-301(8). 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 the findings indicate that the ALJ resolved conflicts in the evidence based upon his credibility determinations. See Riddle v. Ampex Corp., 839 P.2d 489
(Colo.App. 1992). Further, the ALJ’s finding that the claimant failed to prove the requisite causal connection between the industrial accident and the meniscal tear is supported by substantial evidence and plausible inferences drawn from Dr. Olson’s testimony and, that finding supports the denial of benefits. Section 8-41-301(1)(b), C.R.S. 2002. Consequently, the claimant has failed to establish grounds which afford us a basis for granting appellate relief.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated December 10, 2002, 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. 2002. 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 16, 2003 to the following parties:
Juan Ramirez, 675 Family Cent., Apt. 7, Canon City, CO 81212
Jean Matthews, Safway Steel Products, Inc., N14 W23833 Stone Ridge Dr., #400, Waukesha, WI 53188
Zurich-American Insurance, c/o Nhu Miller, Specialty Risk Services, P. O. Box 2217010, Denver, CO 80222
Michael A. Desaulniers, Esq., 19 E. Cimarron, Colorado Springs, CO 80903 (For Claimant)
Patricia Jean Clisham, Esq., 1125 17th St., #600, Denver, CO 80202 (For Respondents)
BY: A. Hurtado