W.C. No. 3-070-263Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
September 20, 1996
FINAL ORDER
The respondents seek review of a final order of Administrative Law Judge Martinez (ALJ) which awarded the claimant ongoing medical benefits subsequent to maximum medical improvement (MMI). We affirm.
Based on the claimant’s testimony and the records of Dr. Kearns, the ALJ found that the claimant has received “treatment and medication which relieves the symptoms resulting from the 1990 back injury.” The ALJ also found that this treatment has been provided subsequent to the claimant’s attainment of MMI. Consequently, the ALJ concluded that the claimant is entitled to ongoing medical benefits pursuant to Grover v. Industrial Commission, 759 P.2d 705 (Colo. 1988).
On review, the respondents contend that the ALJ’s award of Grover
medical benefits is contrary to the facts and the law. Essentially, the respondents assert that the claimant’s testimony is insufficient to establish a need for Grover medical benefits, and that the record does not contain sufficient medical evidence to support the ALJ’s order. We are not persuaded.
Under Grover v. Industrial Commission, an ALJ may award ongoing medical benefits if reasonably necessary to “relieve the effects of the injury or prevent further deterioration.” All that is required is that the claimant present “substantial evidence” of the need for treatment Stollmeyer v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 916 P.2d 609 (Colo.App. 1995).
Because the issue is factual in nature, we must uphold the ALJ’s order if supported by substantial evidence in the record. Section 8-43-301(8), C.R.S. (1996 Cum. Supp.). In applying this standard, we are bound by the ALJ’s resolution of conflicts in the evidence, his credibility determinations and the plausible inferences which he drew from the evidence. Ackerman v. Hilton’s Mechanical Men, Inc., 914 P.2d 624
(Colo.App. 1996).
The respondents’ argument notwithstanding, the record contains substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s award of Grover medical benefits. Billing records from the office of Dr. Kearns indicate that he prescribed medication and “osteopathic manipulation” subsequent to the date of MMI. The claimant testified that these treatments and the medication relieved the chronic pain associated with his industrial injury. (Tr. p. 7). Under these circumstances, the ALJ could logically infer that the claimant has needed, and will continue to need, medical treatment to relieve the effects of the injury.
Insofar as the respondents have made other arguments, we find them to be without merit.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated April 12, 1996, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
________________________________ David Cain
________________________________ Kathy E. Dean
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. (1995 Cum. Supp.).
Copies of this decision were mailed September 20, 1996 to the following parties:
Robert Rowe, 275 N. Orchard Ct., Fruita, CO 81521
General Growth Management, 400 Highway 169 S Ste. 800, Minneapolis, MN 55426-1116
Kelle Walker, Liberty Mutual Insurance, 13111 E. Briarwood Ave., Ste. 100, Englewood, CO 80112
Christopher Seidman, Esq., P.O. Box 3207, Grand Junction, CO 81502 (For the Claimant)
John M. Connell, Esq. Kathleen North, Esq., 1290 Broadway, #705, Denver, CO 80203 (For the Respondents)
By: __________________