W.C. No. 4-165-865Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
September 11, 1995
FINAL ORDER
The respondents seek review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Barringer (ALJ) which found that the claimant sustained a compensable occupational disease. We affirm.
The claimant testified that she was exposed to various chemicals while working in the respondent-employer’s laundry. Ultimately, the claimant testified that the exposure to these chemicals caused her to develop a cough and fatigue.
Relying on the testimony of the claimant’s treating physician, the ALJ concluded that the claimant sustained a compensable occupational disease as a result of her exposure to the chemicals. The ALJ specifically found that:
“Dr. Sumio Go, Claimant’s treating doctor, opined within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that Claimant’s exposure to the cleaning chemicals caused her injury.”
On review, the respondents contend that the ALJ’s finding concerning the testimony of Dr. Go is not supported by substantial evidence. In support of this proposition, the respondents cite a portion of Dr. Go’s testimony in which he admitted that he did not perform any “provocative studies,” and therefore, could not make a “firm diagnosis” of the claimant’s condition. In that portion of his testimony, Dr. Go also stated that he could not “render an opinion to a reasonable degree of medical probability” without performing the tests. (Go depo. p. 18).
It is certainly true that, when expressing an opinion concerning causation, a medical expert’s opinion should be based upon the standard of a reasonable degree of medical probability. Ringsby Truck Lines, Inc. v. Industrial Commission, 30 Colo. App. 224, 491 P.2d 106 (1971). However, when evaluating expert medical opinion concerning causation, it is for the ALJ to assess the weight and credibility of the testimony. Rockwell International v. Turnbull, 802 P.2d 1182 (Colo.App. 1990). Further, insofar as the testimony of a particular medical expert contains inconsistencies, it is the prerogative of the ALJ to resolve the inconsistencies. Colorado Springs Motors, Ltd. v. Industrial Commission, 165 Colo. 504, 441 P.2d 21 (1968); El Paso County Department of Social Services v. Donn, 865 P.2d 877 (Colo.App. 1993).
At one point in his testimony, Dr. Go stated that it was his conclusion, to a reasonable degree of medical probability or certainty, that the claimant suffered from a “cough induced by irritant dusts or fumes to which she was exposed at her place of work.” (Go depo. p. 7). This conclusion was based on Dr. Go’s understanding of the claimant’s medical history. It is true that the portion of Dr. Go’s testimony cited by the respondents tends to discredit and impeach Dr. Go’s opinion. However, as we have indicated, it was for the ALJ to resolve this inconsistency, and we decline the respondents’ invitation to substitute our judgment for that of the ALJ on this credibility issue. Section 8-43-301(8), C.R.S. (1995 Cum. Supp.); Martinez v. Regional Transportation District, 832 P.2d 1060
(Colo.App. 1992).
Moreover, we cannot say that Dr. Go’s testimony is necessarily inconsistent. Dr. Go’s inability to state, to a reasonable degree of medical probability, the claimant’s precise diagnosis is not inherently inconsistent with his conclusion that the claimant’s condition is caused by her exposure to irritants at work. Hence, the ALJ need not have perceived Dr. Go’s testimony in the manner described by the respondents.
It follows that we disagree with the respondents’ argument that the ALJ’s order is unsupported by substantial evidence. 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 December 16, 1993, 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 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 September 11, 1995 to the following parties:
Priscilla Sisneros, 123 Carson Ave., Las Animas, CO 81054
Ronald D. Barbee d/b/a Scrub Tub Laundry, 232 W. 2nd St., Las Animas, CO 81054-1110
Colorado Compensation Insurance Authority, Attn: Curt Kriksciun, Esq. — (Interagency Mail)
Mark A. MacDonnell, 437 Sixth St., Las Animas, CO 81054 (For the Claimant)
By: __________________________