W.C. No. 4-396-939Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
April 30, 1999.
FINAL ORDER
The claimant seeks review of a final order of Administrative Law Judge Moeller (ALJ), which denied and dismissed the claim for workers’ compensation benefits. We affirm.
In 1995, the claimant suffered an admitted low back injury and received permanent partial disability benefits. The claimant alleged he injured his knee and reinjured his low back on August 7, 1998, when he slipped from the cab of a heavy-duty truck while working as a salesperson for Auto Truck Mart. The respondents denied liability.
The ALJ determined the claimant failed to sustain his burden to prove that he suffered injuries on August 7, 1998 arising out of an in the course of his employment. In so doing, the ALJ found the claimant’s testimony concerning the alleged injury was inconsistent and unreliable. Instead, the ALJ credited the medical opinions of Dr. Roth.
Section 8-43-301(8), C.R.S. 1998, precludes us from disturbing the ALJ’s order unless the findings of fact are insufficient to permit appellate review, conflicts in the evidence are not resolved, the findings of fact are not supported by substantial evidence in the record, the findings of fact do not support the order, or the order is contrary to the law.
The claimant’s petition to review indicates he disagrees with the ALJ’s order. However, the petition does not contain any specific allegations of error. Section 8-43-301(8), C.R.S. 1998. Furthermore, the claimant has not filed a brief in support of his petition to review. Consequently, the effectiveness of our review is limited. Ortiz v. Industrial Commission, 734 P.2d 642
(Colo.App. 1986).
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). Moreover, the claimant has not provided a transcript, and therefore, we must presume that the ALJ’s findings concerning the testimony are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Nova v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 754 P.2d 800 (Colo.App. 1988). The ALJ’s pertinent findings are also supported by the medical report of Dr. Roth, and these findings support the conclusion that the claimant failed to prove a compensable injury. Section 8-41-301(1)(b), C.R.S. 1998; City of Durango v. Dunagan, 939 P.2d 496 (Colo.App. 1997). Therefore, the order denying benefits is consistent with the applicable law.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated February 4, 1999, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
______________________________ Kathy E. Dean ______________________________ Dona Halsey
NOTICE
This Order is final unless an action to modify or vacate the Order is commenced in the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2 East 14th Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80203, by filing a petition to review with the court, with service of a copy of the petition upon the Industrial Claim Appeals Office and all other parties, within twenty (20) days after the date the Order was mailed, pursuant to §§ 8-43-301(10) and 307, C.R.S. (1996 Cum. Supp.).
Copies of this decision were mailed April 30, 1999
the following parties:
Loren A. Ross, 16815 Golden Hills, Golden, CO 80401
Auto Truck Mart LLC, 75 W. Bridge St., Brighton, CO 80601-2804
Glen B. Goldman, Esq., 999 18th St., Ste. 3100, Denver, CO 80202
Michael J. Steiner, Esq., Colorado Compensation Insurance Authority (Interagency Mail) (For Respondents)
Kevin C. Smith, Esq., 650 S. Cherry St., Ste. 820, Denver, CO 80246 (For Claimant)
By: AP