W.C. No. 4-528-774Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
February 6, 2003
FINAL ORDER
The claimant seeks review of a Supplemental Order of Administrative Law Judge Jones (ALJ) which denied and dismissed the claim for workers’ compensation benefits. The claimant argues the ALJ’s findings are not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm.
The claimant testified that on January 21, 2002, he was helping another employee push an automobile when he slipped and injured his back, left elbow, and hit his head. The claimant sought emergency room treatment on January 21, and was referred to Dr. Sanidas, who diagnosed the claimant with a “mild traumatic brain injury,” a left elbow contusion, and strains of the cervical and lumbar spine. Dr. Sanidas removed the claimant from work.
The respondents produced the testimony of the employee who assisted the claimant in moving the car. Although this witness “heard” the claimant fall, he contradicted certain aspects of the claimant’s testimony concerning the circumstances of the alleged injury. For instance, the claimant testified he was on the ground and told the witness to stop the car. The witness testified he simply put the car in park and when he looked back the claimant was already back up. The witness further testified that he believed he was “set up” to observe the claimant’s accident. (Tr. Pp. 12, 35, 39, 41).
The employer also produced the claimant’s supervisor who testified that shortly before the incident he told the claimant that the claimant was to be laid off, and the claimant was dissatisfied with this announcement. The supervisor further testified that he when he observed the claimant after the alleged injury he did not notice the claimant was having any trouble walking, nor did the claimant appear to have any balance problems. The employer’s office manager also testified that she did not observe the claimant having any physical difficulties after the incident.
The ALJ concluded the claimant failed to prove he sustained any injuries arising out of and in the course of his employment. In support, the ALJ found the claimant’s testimony “about the circumstances and consequences of the alleged accident was not credible.” The ALJ further found the testimony of the employer’s witnesses was “more credible and persuasive.”
On review, the claimant contends the ALJ was compelled to credit the claimant’s “substantially undisputed” and uncontradicted evidence and testimony. The claimant argues the ALJ’s decision to discredit the claimant’s testimony and credit that of the employer’s witnesses was the product of unreasonable inferences drawn by the ALJ. We disagree.
The claimant had the burden of proof to establish that he sustained injuries proximately caused by an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. The question of whether the claimant met the burden of proof is one of fact for determination by the ALJ. Section 8-41-301(1)(c), C.R.S. 2002; 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 pertinent findings if supported by substantial evidence in the record. Section 8-43-301(8), C.R.S. 2002. This standard of review requires us to defer to the ALJ’s resolution of conflicts in the evidence, credibility determinations, and plausible inferences drawn from the record. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Industrial Claims Office, 989 P.2d 251 (Colo.App. 1999). The ALJ is under no obligation to credit testimony, even if the testimony is not directly rebutted or contradicted. Levy v. Everson Plumbing Co., Inc., 171 Colo. 468, 468 P.2d 34 (Colo.App. 1970).
The claimant’s argument notwithstanding, the ALJ was not obligated to credit the claimant’s testimony that the fall to the ground resulted in any injuries. Although the claimant denied knowing he was to be laid off, the ALJ credited the supervisor’s testimony to the contrary. (Tr. Pp. 9, 46). Hence, the ALJ plausibly inferred the claimant had a motivation to falsify or exaggerate his testimony to establish a disabling injury. Moreover, the testimony of the employee who helped the claimant push the car lends support to the ALJ’s conclusion that the claimant misrepresented the events surrounding the alleged injuries.
Further, the claimant’s testimony is to some degree contradicted by the medical evidence. The emergency room notes of January 21 state the claimant was a poor historian and vague concerning the precise location of his pain, and the notes make no reference to a head injury. X-rays of the lumbar spine and left elbow were negative. In light of this evidence, the ALJ was not required to credit the opinions of Dr. Sanidas insofar as they tend to corroborate the claimant’s testimony.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s Supplemental Order dated November 1, 2002, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
___________________________________
David Cain
___________________________________
Bill Whitacre
NOTICE
This Order is final unless an action to modify or vacate this Order iscommenced in the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2 East 14th Avenue, Denver,CO 80203, by filing a petition for review with the Court, within twenty(20) days after the date this Order is mailed, pursuant to § 8-43-301(10)and § 8-43-307, C.R.S. 2002. The appealing party must serve a copy of thepetition upon all other parties, including the Industrial Claim AppealsOffice, which may be served by mail at 1515 Arapahoe Street, Tower 3,Suite 350, Denver, CO 80202.
Copies of this decision were mailed ________ February 6, 2003 ___ to the following parties:
Nikolai Vadavoi, 12806 E. Ohio Ave., Aurora, CO 80012
Professional Auto Body, 1425 Jamaica St., Aurora, CO 80010
Farmers Insurance Exchange, 7535 E. Hampden Ave., #300, Denver, CO 80231
Richard C. Sandomire, Esq., 50 S. Steele St., #440, Denver, CO 80209 (For Claimant)
Christian M. Lind, Esq., 1801 Broadway, #1500, Denver, CO 80202 (For Respondents)
By: __________A. Hurtado__________