W.C. No. 4-715-022.Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
May 27, 2008.
FINAL ORDER
The claimant seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Walsh (ALJ) dated March 4, 2008 that denied and dismissed the claim for medical benefits related to claimant’s low back condition. We affirm.
The issue for determination at the hearing was whether the claimant’s back symptoms were causally related to the claimant’s admitted work-related injury of June 12, 2006. The ALJ’s pertinent findings of fact are as follows. The claimant incurred an admitted work-related injury to his right ankle on June 12, 2006. On February 7, 2007, the claimant’s authorized treating physician placed the claimant at maximum medical improvement and provided an impairment rating. The first record of a complaint of back pain by the claimant was a physical therapy record dated April 7, 2007. Dr. Steinmetz credibly opined that the claimant’s low back symptoms were not related to his work injury. The ALJ concluded that the claimant had failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that his low back symptoms were related to his work-related injury.
The record contains no transcript of the hearing before the ALJ. As a general matter, we must uphold the ALJ’s factual findings if supported by substantial evidence in the record. Section 8-43-301(8), C.R.S. 2007. Where, as here, the appealing party fails to procure transcripts of the relevant hearings we must presume the pertinent findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. Nova v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 754 P.2d 800 (Colo.App. 1988). The petition to review was timely filed but contains only the allegation that the ALJ erred in dismissing the case. The record does contain a “Memorandum Brief In Support of Claimant’s Petition To Review.” However, an order
Page 2
striking the claimant’s brief was entered by the ALJ because the brief was not timely filed. The record contains no appeal of the order striking the claimant’s brief. Because we discern no error with regard to the ALJ’s order striking the brief, we have not considered the arguments made there. In the absence of a detailed petition to review, a brief in support of the petition and transcripts of the hearing, the effectiveness of our review is limited. Ortiz v. Industrial Commission, 734 P.2d 642
(Colo.App. 1986).
Under § 8-43-301(8), C.R.S. 2007 we are precluded from disturbing the ALJ’s order unless the findings of fact are insufficient to permit appellate review, the ALJ has not resolved conflicts in the evidence, the record does not support the findings, the order is not supported by the findings, or the order is not supported by applicable law. Where the claimant’s entitlement to benefits is disputed, the claimant has the burden to prove a causal relationship between a work-related injury or disease and the condition for which benefits or compensation are sought Snyder v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 942 P.2d 1337 (Colo.App. 1997). Whether the claimant sustained his burden of proof is a factual question for resolution by the ALJ. City of Durango v. Dunagan, 939 P.2d 496 (Colo.App. 1997). The ALJ’s factual determinations must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence and plausible inferences drawn from the record. We have no authority to substitute our judgment for that of the ALJ concerning the credibility of witnesses and we may not reweigh the evidence on appeal. Id; Delta Drywall v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 868 P.2d 1155 (Colo.App. 1993).
Here, we have reviewed the record and the ALJ’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. The ALJ’s findings are sufficient to permit appellate review and the ALJ resolved conflicts in the evidence based upon weighing of the evidence and his credibility determinations. As stated above without the transcript we must presume that the factual findings are supported by substantial evidence. Further, the findings support the conclusion that the claimant failed to prove entitlement to further benefits and compensation. The ALJ correctly applied the law and did not err in denying benefits. Accordingly, we perceive no basis on which to disturb the ALJ’s order.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order issued March 4, 2008 is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
_______________________ Curt Kriksciun
_______________________ Thomas Schrant
Page 3
ARTURO RODRIGUEZ, COLORADO SPRINGS, CO, (Claimant).
KANE KONCRETE, Attn: DAVID KANE, COLORADO SPRINGS, CO, (Employer).
TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE, DENVER, CO, (Insurer).
LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM ALEXANDER JR., PC, Attn: WILLIAM A ALEXANDER JR., ESQ., COLORADO SPRINGS, CO, (For Claimant).
VARNELL ASSOCIATES, Attn: JOE ESPINOSA, ESQ., DENVER, CO, (For Respondents).
Page 1