W.C. No. 4-244-328Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
June 17, 1996
FINAL ORDER
The claimant seeks review of a final order of Administrative law Judge Stuber (ALJ) which denied her claim for medical benefits and temporary total disability benefits. We affirm.
The claimant sustained a compensable right shoulder injury in March 1990. Subsequently, in February 1995, she was diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome on the right, as well as a torn rotator cuff of the right shoulder. The claimant sought to establish that the need for surgery on both of these conditions was causally connected to the 1990 injury.
However, the ALJ found that neither condition was causally related to the industrial injury. With respect to the torn rotator cuff, the ALJ found that the claimant’s shoulder condition improved after the 1990 injury and that the claimant continued to perform her regular employment until she retired on January 1, 1992. The ALJ also noted that, after 1990, the claimant did not need additional treatment for her shoulder until she painted a room in October 1994. Finally, the ALJ cited the statement of the claimant’s authorized treating physician, Dr. Rupp, that “repetitive overhead type work” can aggravate pre-existing shoulder problems.
With regard to the carpal tunnel syndrome, the ALJ observed that the claimant’s hand symptoms did not develop until late in 1994. In May 1995, Dr. Rupp stated that he did not know when the carpal tunnel syndrome developed, and that there was no “specific precipitating injury” for this condition. Although Dr. Rupp later changed his opinion concerning the relationship of the carpal tunnel to the 1990 shoulder injury, the ALJ was unpersuaded by the new opinion, especially in the absence of other medical documentation “which would support this change of opinion.”
On review, the claimant contends the ALJ erred in denying her claim for temporary total disability benefits and medical benefits associated with the torn rotator cuff and the carpal tunnel syndrome. In essence, the claimant argues that the evidence proves that both conditions were causally related to the industrial injury, and the ALJ erred in finding to the contrary. In support, the claimant’s cites her own testimony, as well as Dr. Rupp’s “unrebutted” report of July 24, 1995. We find the claimant’s arguments unpersuasive.
It is true, as the claimant argues, that conditions which are a natural and proximate result of an industrial injury are compensable Standard Metals Corp. v. Ball, 172 Colo. 510, 474 P.2d 622 (1970). However, the ALJ need not compensate conditions which develop after the industrial injury if they are the result of efficient intervening causes See Post Printing and Publishing Co. v. Erickson, 94 Colo. 382, 30 P.2d 327
(1934). The resolution of these issues is largely one of fact for the ALJ, and we must uphold his determination if supported by substantial evidence in the record. Standard Metals Corp. v. Ball, supra; Landolt v. Scott Specialty Gases, Inc., W.C. No. 4-130-484, August 24, 1994.
In applying the substantial evidence test, we must defer to the ALJ’s resolution of conflicts in the evidence, his credibility determinations, and the plausible inferences which he drew from the evidence. Metro Moving Storage Co. v. Gussert, 914 P.2d 411 (Colo.App. 1995). We particularly note that the weight and credibility of medical evidence concerning causation is to be determined by the ALJ. Further, to the extent a particular medical opinion contains internal inconsistencies, the ALJ may resolve the inconsistencies by crediting all, part, or none of the evidence. Colorado Springs Motors, Ltd. v. Industrial Commission, 165 Colo. 504, 441 P.2d 21 (1968); Rockwell International v. Turnbull, 802 P.2d 1182 (Colo.App. 1990).
The claimant’s arguments notwithstanding, the evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that the carpal tunnel syndrome was not a natural and proximate result of the industrial shoulder injury. The carpal tunnel syndrome did not appear until almost five years after the industrial injury. Further, Dr. Rupp issued conflicting opinions concerning whether or not there was a causal relationship. Under these circumstances, the record contains ample evidence in support of the ALJ’s finding, and we decline the claimant’s invitation to substitute our judgment for that of the ALJ.
Similarly, the record contains conflicting evidence concerning whether or not the claimant’s need for shoulder surgery was causally connected to the 1990 surgery. Dr. Rupp’s May 3 opinion suggests that the claimant’s painting activity, in October 1994, could have aggravated the shoulder injury and caused the need for treatment. Although Dr. Rupp appears to have retracted that opinion in the July 24 opinion, determination of the weight to be accorded these conflicting opinions and resolution of this inconsistency was a matter for the ALJ.
There is evidence of an intervening event, and the record supports the ALJ’s determination that the claimant failed to prove the requisite causal relationship. The mere fact that some of the evidence might have supported contrary findings and conclusions affords no basis for relief on appeal May D F v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 752 P.2d 589 (Colo.App. 1988).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated January 10, 1996, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEAL PANEL
___________________________________ David Cain
___________________________________ Bill Whitacre
NOTICE
This Order is final unless an action to modify or vacate the Order iscommenced in the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2 East 14th Avenue, Denver,Colorado 80203, by filing a petition to review with the court, withservice of a copy of the petition upon the Industrial Claim Appeals Officeand all other parties, within twenty (20) days after the date the Orderwas mailed, pursuant to §§ 8-43-301(10) and 307, C.R.S. (1995 Cum.Supp.).
Copies of this decision were mailed June 17, 1996 to the following parties:
Rachel Rucobo, 11693 Flatiron Dr., Lafayette, CO 80026
Jennifer Lim, IBM, P.O. Box 1900, Boulder, CO 80301-9191
Leona Zuffoletto, Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 13111 E. Briarwood Ave., #100, Englewood, CO 80112
Lawrence D. Blackman, Esq., 1290 Broadway, Ste. 708, Denver, CO 80203 (For the Claimant)
Carolyn Sue Purdie, Esq., 1120 Lincoln, St., Ste. 1606, Denver, CO 80203 (For the Respondents)
By: _________________________