W.C. No. 4-245-368Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
April 3, 1996
FINAL ORDER
The respondents seek review of a final order of Administrative Law Judge Martinez (ALJ) which determined that the claimant suffered a compensable right hand/wrist injury on January 5, 1995, and awarded benefits. We affirm.
The ALJ’s pertinent findings of fact may be summarized as follows. The claimant injured her right wrist, and right thumb on December 2, 1994 during her employment as a night shift stock person for Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., (employer). The claimant did not believe the injuries were serious, and therefore, refused the employer’s offer of medical treatment.
Subsequently, on January 5, 1995, the claimant suffered another industrial accident while stocking typing paper from a six foot stepladder. The box of typing paper burst open and the individually rapped boxes of paper fell on the claimant. With her hands, the claimant attempted to protect her face from the falling paper, but at least one box of paper struck the claimant in the face and broke her glasses. After the accident the claimant was emotionally shaken, and without knowing the full effects of her injuries, reported an injury to her face.
Thereafter, the claimant continued to perform her regular employment duties although she experienced increasing right hand pain and wore an ace bandage on her right wrist. On February 27, 1995, the claimant was unable to continue working due to right hand pain, and the employer referred her to Dr. Bloink for treatment.
Based upon these findings the ALJ determined that the claimant suffered an injury to her right hand as well as her face on January 5, 1995. In so doing, the ALJ found the claimant’s testimony credible and persuasive. The ALJ also determined that the respondents’ witnesses did not contradict the claimant’s testimony that her right hand problems were the result of the January 5 accident.
On review, the respondents contend that the ALJ’s findings are only supported by the claimant’s “self-serving testimony.” Therefore, the respondents argue that the ALJ’s findings are not supported by substantial evidence in the record. We disagree.
Substantial evidence is that quantum of probative evidence which a rational fact-finder would accept as adequate to support a conclusion, without regard to the existence of conflicting evidence. Durocher v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 905 P.2d 4 (Colo.App. 1995). Contrary to the respondents’ argument, the claimant’s testimony, if credited, may constitute substantial evidence to support a compensability determination. Apache Corp. v. Industrial Commission, 717 P.2d 1000
(Colo.App. 1986) (claimant’s testimony substantial evidence that employment caused heart attack); Savio House v. Dennis, 665 P.2d 141
(Colo.App. 1983). Furthermore, we may not interfere with the ALJ’s credibility determinations unless the testimony the ALJ credited is rebutted by such hard, certain evidence that the fact finder would err as a matter of law in believing the witness. Halliburton Services v. Miller, 720 P.2d 571 (Colo. 1986).
We have reviewed the record and the ALJ’s findings of fact. The ALJ’s findings are supported by substantial evidence in the claimant’s testimony. (Tr. pp. 7, 10-13, 15, 16, 18, 20). Furthermore, we agree with the ALJ that the testimony of the respondents’ witnesses does not directly refute the claimant’s testimony concerning the cause of her right hand injury. Under these circumstances, we cannot say that the ALJ erred in crediting the claimant’s testimony. Halliburton Services v. Miller, supra.
In any case, the ALJ’s findings were not based solely on the claimant’s testimony. The ALJ also credited Dr. Shavlik’s testimony concerning the claimant’s initial injury report. (Finding of Fact 6) El Paso County Department of Social Services v. Donn, 865 P.2d 877
(Colo.App. 1993). Furthermore, the ALJ relied on the medical reports of Dr. Bloink and the other examining physicians. Contrary to the respondents’ argument, the ALJ could logically infer that, insofar as the physicians found that the claimant’s condition was consistent with the claimant’s description of the January 5 accident, the medical reports support a finding of compensability.
The respondents remaining arguments have been considered and are without merit. Although the ALJ was not required liberally to interpret the facts in favor of the claimant, he was not precluded from resolving evidentiary conflicts in favor of the claimant. Section 8-43-201 C.R.S. (1995 Cum. Supp.); Christie v. Coors Transportation, ___ P.2d ___ (Colo.App. No. 95CA0581, December 7, 1995). Moreover, we have no authority to substitute our judgment for that of the ALJ in this regard Martinez v. Regional Transportation District, 832 P.2d 1060 (Colo.App. 1992).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated October 24, 1995, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
____________________________________ David Cain
____________________________________ Kathy E. Dean
NOTICE
This Order is final unless an action to modify or vacate this Order is commenced in the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2 East 14th Avenue, Denver, CO 80203, by filing a petition for 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 this Order is mailed, pursuant to section 8-43-301(10) and 307, C.R.S. (1995 Cum. Supp.).
Copies of this decision were mailed April 3, 1996__ to the following parties:
Wanetta D. Salisbury, 435 S. Elm St., Cortez, CO 81321
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., P.O. Box 116, Bentonville, AR 72712-0116
Ardella Burris, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2220 E. Main, Cortez, CO 81321
Ins. Co. of the State of PA c/o Claims Management, Inc., Attn: Cecilie Foster, P.O. Box 1288, Bentonville, AR 72712-1288
Joseph W. Olt, Jr., Esq., 15 North Market St., Cortez, CO 81321 (For the Claimant)
Richard A. Bovarnick, Esq., 5353 W. Dartmouth Ave., #400, Denver, CO 80227 (For the Respondents)
BY: _______________________