W.C. No. 4-535-768.Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
July 19, 2004.
FINAL ORDER
The claimant seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Muramoto (ALJ) which denied and dismissed his claim for workers’ compensation benefits. The claimant asserts the ALJ failed to consider a medical report supportive of the claim. We affirm.
The claimant alleged that on January 7, 2002, he injured his back, shoulder, and knee while lifting large rocks on the job. However, the ALJ denied the claim, finding that the claimant failed to prove an injury arising out of and in the course of the employment. Specifically, the ALJ found the claimant’s testimony concerning the occurrence and reporting of the injury was contradicted by the credible testimony of the claimant’s supervisor and the employer’s comptroller. The ALJ also found that, contrary to the claimant’s testimony, there was no “distraction” during the conduct of a functional capacities evaluation.
The ALJ also relied on the reports of the authorized treating physician (ATP), Dr. Quick. Specifically, the ALJ noted that on May 13, 2002, the ATP reported the claimant displayed “non-physiologic rigidity” of the knee and back. Further, the claimant’s MRI studies of the knee and back were negative.
On review, the claimant contends the ALJ erred by failing to consider the medical report of Dr. Beatty. Dr. Beatty’s report is favorable to the claimant’s case in that diagnoses the claimant as suffering from myofascial pain of the right shoulder, a lumbosacral strain, and “iliotibial band syndrome” of the left knee. We perceive no error.
The claimant had the burden to prove the alleged medical problems were proximately caused by an injury arising out of and in the course of the employment. The question of whether the claimant met the burden of proof is one of fact for determination by the ALJ. 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 finding if supported by substantial evidence in the record. Section 8-43-301 (8), C.R.S. 2003. This standard of review requires us to defer to the ALJ’s resolution of conflicts in the evidence, credibility determinations, and plausible inferences drawn from the record. Cordova v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 55 P.3d 186 (Colo.App. 2002).
Here, the claimant failed to designate a transcript as part of the record on appeal. Consequently, we must presume the ALJ’s findings concerning the testimony are supported by substantial evidence. Nova v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 754 P.2d 800 (Colo.App. 1988).
In her order the ALJ detailed the claimant’s testimony and the testimony of other witnesses, and we must presume the ALJ’s recitation is correct since the claimant has not provided a transcript of the hearing. Further, we have reviewed the depositions of Lundy and Haight, and conclude the ALJ’s findings concerning their testimony, which contradicted that of the claimant, are supported by the record. Thus, there is ample evidence to support the ALJ’s finding that the claimant failed to prove any injury arising out of his employment, and we may not interfere with that determination.
It is true the ALJ’s order does not mention the medical report cited by the claimant. However, the basis of the order is clear from those findings which were entered, and it is presumed the ALJ did not find the medical report persuasive. See Magnetic Engineering, Inc. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 5 P.3d 385 (Colo.App. 2000) (if findings are sufficient to indicate the basis of the order it is presumed ALJ rejected evidence not mentioned in the order).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated April 1, 2004, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
____________________ David Cain
____________________ Bill Whitacre
Alberto Rodriguez, Littleton, CO, U.S. Masonry, Inc., Golden, CO, Zurich American Insurance, Denver, CO, D. Dale Sadler, Esq., Greenwood Village, CO, (For Claimant).
Frank Cavanaugh, Esq., Denver, CO, (For Respondents).