W.C. No. 4-430-698Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
May 29, 2003
FINAL ORDER
The claimant seeks review of a final order of Administrative Law Judge Muramoto which denied and dismissed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits. The claimant contests the ALJ’s determination that the claimant failed to prove an occupational disease caused by the conditions of employment, and argues that the findings of fact are insufficient to support appellate review. We affirm.
The claimant alleged that industrial exposure to diesel fumes aggravated preexisting asthma so as to cause the need for medical treatment. However, crediting the report and testimony of Dr. Repsher, the respondents’ medical expert, the ALJ found the claimant failed to prove the industrial exposure to diesel fumes aggravated asthma, or that the claimant even has asthma. In particular, the ALJ was persuaded by Dr. Repsher’s opinion that a January 2000 methacholine challenge test was negative for asthma, that a spirometry test was more consistent with vocal cord dysfunction than asthma, and that all of the claimant’s chest x-rays were negative.
On review, the claimant first contends the ALJ failed to resolve a number of conflicts in the evidence between Dr. Repsher’s opinions and the contents of the medical records and the opinions of the claimant’s experts, including Dr. Maier. We disagree with this assertion.
An ALJ is not held to a standard of absolute clarity when rendering findings of fact and conclusions of law. Rather, it is sufficient for the ALJ to make findings which indicate the factual and legal bases for the order. The ALJ is not required to address every piece of evidence and explicitly resolve every potential conflict and inconsistency in the evidence. The ALJ need only enter findings concerning the evidence which she finds to be dispositive of this issues, and conflicting evidence and inferences are presumed to have been rejected. See Magnetic Engineering, Inc. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 5 P.3d 385 (Colo.App. 2000).
Here, we have no difficulty ascertaining the basis of the ALJ’s order. The ALJ was most persuaded by the expert testimony of Dr. Repsher, who opined the claimant does not have asthma. Specifically, the ALJ was influenced by Dr. Repsher’s analysis of the methacholine challenge, the spirometry report dated December 20, 1999, and the results of the claimant’s chest x-rays. Although there were conflicts in the evidence, the ALJ identified those matters which she found decisive to resolution of the causation issue, and her failure to address every aspect of the evidence does not vitiate the order.
The claimant next contends the evidence does not support the ALJ’s finding that he failed to prove the industrial exposure to diesel fumes caused an aggravation of asthma. The claimant also disputes the ALJ’s decision to credit the opinions of Dr. Repsher over those of Dr. Maier. We perceive no error.
The claimant had the burden to prove that the conditions of his employment aggravated the allegedly preexisting asthma, and the question of whether he did so was one of fact for determination by the ALJ. Section 8-41-301(1)(c), C.R.S. 2002; Faulkner v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 12 P.3d 844 (Colo.App. 2000). Because the issue is factual in nature, we must uphold the ALJ’s pertinent findings if supported by substantial evidence in the record. Section 8-43-301(8), C.R.S. 2002. This standard of review requires us to view the evidence in a light most favorable to the prevailing party, and defer to the ALJ’s resolution of conflicts in the evidence, credibility determinations, and plausible inferences drawn from the record. Metro Moving and Storage Co. v. Gussert, 914 P.2d 411 (Colo.App. 1995). We particularly note that the assessment of the weight and credibility of expert medical testimony on the issue of causation is within the ALJ’s province as fact-finder Cordova v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 55 P.3d 186 (Colo.App. 2002).
Here, Dr. Repsher explained in great detail why, in his opinion, the results of the methacholine challenge test were not diagnostic for asthma, and why he believed the claimant gave less than optimal effort when participating in the test. In particular, Dr. Repsher noted the claimant’s FEV1 dropped after administration of the placebo, and there was not a significant drop after the introduction of methacholine. Further, although Dr. Repsher acknowledged a positive methacholine challenge may be of assistance in diagnosing asthma, he refuted Dr. Maier’s opinion that the methacholine challenge test represents the “gold standard” for diagnosing asthma. (Tr. pp. 146-152).
Dr. Repsher also explained why, in his opinion, the December 1999 spirometry test was indicative of vocal cord dysfunction rather than asthma. (Tr. P. 157). Even Dr. Maier acknowledged in her deposition that she is now concerned the claimant may have an element of vocal cord dysfunction based on more recent testing. (Maier Depo. P. 69).
Finally, Dr. Repsher explained the claimant cannot have asthma because the chest x- rays reveal normal lungs, not the enlarged lungs characteristic of asthma. (Tr. Pp. 154-155). The ALJ found this testimony persuasive, and implicitly resolved the conflict in the evidence against Dr. Maier who placed no significance on the presence of normal chest x-rays. (Maier Depo. P. 14; Finding of Fact 9).
It is true that Dr. Repsher’s opinion conflicted with Dr. Maier and Dr. Staab concerning the claimant’s alleged heart disease. However, the ALJ resolved this conflict in favor of the respondents and we cannot say she erred in doing so. As the ALJ found Dr. Repsher fully explained his position on this issue.
To the extent the claimant makes other allegations of error, we find them to be without merit. The ALJ resolved conflicting expert medical opinion against the claimant, and we may not substitute our judgment for hers on this record.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated September 23, 2002, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
___________________________________ David Cain
___________________________________ Dona Halsey
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 Street, Tower 3, Suite 350, Denver, CO 80202.
Copies of this decision were mailed May 29, 2003 to the following parties:
Kevin Rinnander, 2986 W. Union Ave., Englewood, CO 80110
Bruce Clabaugh, Waste Management of Colorado, P. O. Box 1238, Englewood, CO 80110
Reliance National Indemnity, c/o Dana Brendemuhl, Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc., P. O. Box 4068, Englewood, CO 80155-4068
Bruce J. Gordon, Esq., 19423 N. Turkey Creek Rd., #G3, Morrison, CO 80465 (For Claimant)
James B. Fairbanks, Esq., and Matthew C. Hailey, Esq., 999 18th St., #1600, Denver, CO 80202 (For Respondents)
By: A. Hurtado