W.C. No. 4-577-173.Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
August 30, 2004.
FINAL ORDER
The pro se claimant seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Klein (ALJ) which denied his claim for workers’ compensation benefits. We affirm.
The claimant contended that he sustained an injury to his pancreas on April 30, 2003. According to the claimant he was standing on a wheeled cart which was being used to transport fifty-five gallon drums of liquid sealant. The claimant stated that his job was to stabalize the drum as the cart was towed by a truck. The claimant testified the cart struck a rock causing him to be propelled forward where he struck his chest on the drum. Three days later the claimant experienced severe abdominal pain and was diagnosed with pancreatitis.
However, the ALJ credited conflicting lay and expert medical testimony and found the pancreatitis was caused by the claimant’s alcohol abuse, not the alleged injury. In particular, the ALJ credited the testimony of the claimant’s coworkers that the claimant was not riding on the cart, and was struck in the leg, not the chest. The ALJ also credited the testimony of the respondents’ expert that the delay in the development of symptoms rendered it unlikely that the claimant sustained injury to his pancreas on April 30. Consequently, the ALJ concluded the claimant failed to prove an injury arising out of and in the course of the employment and denied the claim.
The claimant filed a petition to review citing general allegations of error concerning the sufficiency of the evidence and the correctness of the ALJ’s legal conclusions. The claimant has not filed any brief in support of the petition. Consequently, the effectiveness of our review is limited.
The claimant had the burden of proof to establish that he sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. The question of whether the claimant met the burden of proof was 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 findings if supported by substantial evidence in the record. Section 8-43-301(8), C.R.S. 2003. This standard requires us to defer to the ALJ’s credibility determinations, resolution of conflicts in the evidence, and plausible inferences drawn from the record. Cordova v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 55 P.3d 186 (Colo.App. 2002). The mere fact that the evidence might have supported other findings affords no basis for appellate relief. Wilson v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 81 P.3d 1117
(Colo.App. 2003).
Here, there is substantial, albeit conflicting, evidence to support the ALJ’s determination that the claimant did not injure his pancreas as he testified. The ALJ resolved the conflicts against the claimant, and we may not interfere with the credibility determinations. Consequently, there was no factual or legal error in the order.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated April 19, 2004, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
_________________________ David Cain
_________________________ Kathy E. Dean
Casey L. Schnapp, Lakewood, CO, Charles Lau, Excell Caulking
Waterproofing, Lakewood, CO, Legal Department, Pinnacol Assurance — Interagency Mail, Dawn M. Yager, Esq. and T. Paul Krueger, II, Esq., Denver, CO (For Respondents).