W.C. No. 4-563-867.Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
July 19, 2004.
FINAL ORDER
The pro se claimant seeks review of a Corrected Order of Administrative Law Judge Felter (ALJ) dated March 16, 2004. We affirm.
The claimant suffered a compensable occupational disease to her right shoulder. Crediting the opinion of Dr. Fall, the ALJ found the claimant reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) on April 15, 2003, and that no further medical treatment is necessary to maintain the claimant’s condition. Therefore, the ALJ denied the request for temporary disability benefits after April 15, 2003, and future medical benefits.
The ALJ also credited Dr. Fall’s opinions to find the respondents overcome the Division-sponsored independent medical examination (DIME) physician’s medical impairment rating insofar as the DIME physician included 2 percent for permanent mental impairment and 4 percent for cervical impairment. Further, the ALJ determined the claimant’s functional impairment to the right upper extremity did not extend beyond the arm at the shoulder. Therefore, the ALJ limited the respondents’ liability to scheduled disability benefits. In addition the ALJ awarded disfigurement benefits of $600 and determined the claimant’s average weekly wage to be $383.11. The claimant timely appealed.
On appeal the claimant contends the ALJ erroneously failed to consider evidence that the claimant’s right shoulder is “now permanently lower than her other shoulder (left).” The claimant also contests the ALJ’s failure to accept her testimony that she “still suffers pain in her neck, right shoulder and right shoulder blade.” However, 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).
Our authority to review the ALJ’s order is defined in § 8-43-301 (8), C.R.S. 2003. 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).
It is the ALJ’s sole province to assess the credibility of the witnesses. Monfort Inc. v. Rangel, 867 P.2d 122 (Colo.App. 1993). Furthermore, the ALJ is not required to credit the claimant’s testimony even if unrefuted. Levy v. Everson Plumbing Co., Inc., 171 Colo. 468, 468 P.2d 34 (1970). We may not substitute our judgment for that of the ALJ concerning the credibility of the witnesses except in extreme circumstances where the testimony of the witnesses the ALJ found persuasive is “so overwhelmingly rebutted by hard, certain evidence directly contrary” that a fact finder would err as a matter of law in believing the witness. Halliburton Services v. Miller, 720 P.2d 571
(Colo. 1986); Johnson v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 973 P.2d 624
(Colo.App. 1997).
The claimant has not provided a transcript of the hearing on February 18, 2004. Under these circumstances the record is legally insufficient for us to conclude the ALJ erred in failing to credit the claimant’s testimony concerning her ongoing pain. To the contrary, in the absence of a transcript 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).
Similarly, the ALJ is presumed to have considered all relevant evidence. However, the ALJ is not required to make a specific finding on every piece of evidence. Cf. Wecker v. TBL Excavating, Inc., 908 P.2d 1186
(Colo.App. 1995); Dravo Corp. v. Industrial Commission, 40 Colo. App. 57, 569 P.2d 345 (1977). Rather, he is only required to enter findings on the evidence he found dispositive of the issues. Evidence and inferences inconsistent with the order are presumed to have been rejected. Magnetic Engineering Inc. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 5 P.3d 385
(Colo.App. 2000). Consequently, the absence of specific findings of fact concerning the evidence the claimant relies upon does not compel a finding the ALJ failed to consider the evidence.
Moreover the ALJ’s findings support the order. Under these circumstances, the claimant’s allegations fail to establish grounds which afford us a basis to disturb the ALJ’s order.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated March 9, 2004, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL ____________________________________
David Cain ____________________________________
Kathy E. Dean
Estela Ramos, Denver, CO, G K Services, Inc., Denver, CO, United States Fidelity Guaranty, c/o Sarah Hellmann, Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc., Englewood, CO, Douglas A. Thomas, Esq. and Shane A. Wetmore, Esq., Greenwood Village, CO, (For Respondents).