W.C. No. 4-684-931.Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
May 31, 2007.
FINAL ORDER
The claimant seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Broniak (ALJ) dated December 18, 2006, that denied and dismissed the claimant’s claim for compensation. We affirm.
The ALJ’s pertinent findings of fact are as follows. In August 2005 the claimant sustained an injury to his left wrist while skateboarding. On May 3, 2006 the claimant attempted with co-employees to move a truss. In order to stabilize the truss the claimant lunged forward with his left hand. The weight of the truss bent his wrist backward. During the afternoon of May 3, 2006 the claimant sought treatment from Dr. Guy Van der Werf.
Dr. Van der Werf requested an x-ray and referred the claimant to Dr. Grant. Dr. Grant reviewed the x-ray and opined that the scaphoid fracture appeared to be an older injury that was a mal-union. Dr. Van der Werf also assessed the claimant as having an old scaphoid fracture, presumably a non-union.
Dr. Grant referred the claimant to Dr. Young. Dr. Young stated the fracture pattern on the x-ray was unusual but that he couldn’t state within a reasonable degree of medical probability that it was a preexisting injury. Dr. Goldman conducted a medical record review and opined the x-rays revealed a non-union of an old fracture.
Page 2
The ALJ found that the weight of the objective medical evidence demonstrated that the left wrist scaphoid fracture was an “old fracture.” The ALJ found persuasive the opinions of Drs. Van der Werf, Grant and Goldman who opined that based on a review of the x-ray taken on May 3, 2006, combined with statements made by the claimant about his medical history, that the fracture was an old fracture. The ALJ found the claimant’s testimony was not entirely credible. The ALJ concluded that the claimant failed to prove that he sustained a compensable work injury.
The petition to review contains only general allegations of error, derived from § 8-43-301(8), C.R.S. 2006. Moreover, the claimant has not filed a brief in support of his petition to review and, therefore, the effectiveness of our review is severely limited. Ortiz v. Industrial Commission, 734 P.2d 642 (Colo.App. 1986).
The claimant had the burden to prove his alleged disability was proximately caused by an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. Section 8-41-301(1)(c), C.R.S. 2006; Section 8-43-201 C.R.S. 2006. Whether the claimant met that burden of proof is a factual question for resolution by the ALJ, and his determination must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence in the record. Dover Elevator Co. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 961 P.2d 1141 (Colo.App. 1998). 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. Metro Moving Storage Co. v. Gussert, 914 P.2d 411, 415 (Colo.App. 1995).
Because the issue is factual in nature, we must uphold the ALJ’s determination if supported by substantial evidence in the record. Section 8-43-301(8), C.R.S. 2006. This standard of review requires us to consider the evidence in a light most favorable to the prevailing party, and defer to the ALJ’s credibility determinations, resolution of conflicts in the evidence, and plausible inferences drawn from the record. Wilson v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 81 P.3d 1117
(Colo.App. 2003).
The ALJ, with record support, found that the claimant’s testimony was not entirely credible. Dr. Van der Werf’s notes states the patient is a construction work [sic] who injured his left wrist in August 2005. He has been having pain ever since. He has been working construction during that period of time but pain has never fully resolved.” Exhibit K. However, at the time the claimant was examined by Dr. Young he gave a history that he sustained a previous wrist injury in August 2005, but that the pain quickly resolved without medical attention. Exhibit H. The claimant testified that his wrist had bothered him daily since May 3, 2006; however the surveillance video showed the claimant using his hand and wrist without apparent distress on May 26 and 27, 2006. Tr. at 22; Exhibit L. An ALJ’s credibility determinations are binding except in extreme circumstances. Arenas v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 8 P.3d. 558 (Colo.App. 2000). We perceive no basis on which to interfere with the ALJ’s finding on the
Page 3
claimant’s credibility.
The ALJ, again with record support, found the weight of the objective medical evidence demonstrated that the left wrist scaphoid fracture was an “old fracture.” Dr. Van der Werf, Dr. Dr. Goldman and Dr. Grant both expressed this opinion. Exhibit K; Exhibit G; Exhibit I.
We have reviewed the record and the ALJ’s findings of fact. The findings are sufficient to permit appellate review and the ALJ resolved conflicts in the evidence based upon her credibility determinations See Riddle v. Ampex Corp., 839 P.2d 489 (Colo.App. 1992). Although there was conflicting evidence produced at the hearing, the findings are amply supported by substantial evidence. Consequently, those findings must be upheld on review. Kroupa v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 53 P.3d 1192 (Colo.App. 2002).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated December 18, 2006, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
__________________________________ John D. Baird
__________________________________ Thomas Schrant
Page 4
Christopher Sorrow, CO, Estes Park Kendall Construction, Del Kendall, CO, Pinnacol Assurance Harvey D. Flewelling Esq., Denver, CO, Ring
Associates Bob L. Ring, Esq., Collins, CO (For Claimant).
Ritsema Lyon, P.C. T. Paul Krueger, Esq., Denver, CO (For Respondents).
Page 1