W.C. No. 4-517-879Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
February 27, 2004
FINAL ORDER
The claimant seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Jones (ALJ) which denied the claim for benefits because the claimant failed to prove a work-related injury. The claimant contends the ALJ’s findings are contrary to the evidence. We affirm.
The claimant testified that she injured her lower back on September 21 or 22, 2001, when some boxes of paper began to fall and she grabbed them. According to the claimant’s testimony, no witness observed this injury. Further, the claimant did not report any injury to the employer until September 24 when the claimant awoke with severe back pain.
The claimant filed a written report of injury dated October 2, 2001. At that time the claimant stated she injured her right lower back and the injury “may have occurred when lifting heavy boxes of paper” on September 21. In the written report the claimant listed Connie Groether as a witness and denied any prior work-related injuries.
The claimant visited her personal physician on September 24, 2001. The doctor’s report contains a history of low back pain since an injury at work three years ago. Allegedly, the pain was worse over the past week. The claimant testified the report was inaccurate insofar as it described a three year history of back pain.
The ALJ found the claimant’s testimony contained numerous contradictions and inconsistencies. Further, the ALJ was unpersuaded that the claimant’s September 24 experience of waking up with back pain at home was sufficient to establish an industrial injury. Consequently, the ALJ found the claimant failed to prove an injury arising out of and in the course of employment.
On review, the claimant contends the uncontroverted evidence establishes that she proved a compensable injury. Essentially, the claimant argues the ALJ was required to credit her explanations for various inconsistencies and contradictions and award benefits. Based on this record, we find no error.
The claimant had the burden of proof to establish that she sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of the employment. The question of whether the claimant met the burden of proof is 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 resolution if supported by substantial evidence in the record. Section 8-43-301(8), C.R.S. 2003. This standard of review requires us to defer to the ALJ’s resolution of conflicts in the evidence, credibility determinations and the plausible inferences drawn from the record. Cordova v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 55 P.3d 186 (Colo.App. 2002). In this regard we note the ALJ may discredit testimony even if it is uncontradicted. To the extent testimony is internally inconsistent or contradicted by other evidence, the ALJ may resolve the problem by crediting part or none of the testimony. See Monfort, Inc. v. Rangel, 867 P.2d 122 (Colo.App. 1993); Cary v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 867 P.2d 117
(Colo.App. 1993). The mere existence of some evidence which might support a different result affords no basis for appellate relief Wilson v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 81 P.3d 1117
(Colo.App. 2003).
The claimant’s argument notwithstanding, the record fully supports the ALJ’s finding that the claimant failed to prove a compensable injury. The claimant’s hearing testimony concerning the mechanism of injury was far more definite than the vague written statement that she “may” have injured herself at work. Moreover, the claimant’s testimony that she sustained an injury three years before the 2001 injury was inconsistent with her written statement that she sustained no prior injuries. Similarly, the claimant’s testimony concerning the absence of any witness was inconsistent with the written report which reported a witness was present. Finally, the claimant’s testimony that she was not experiencing any back symptoms at the time of the alleged 2001 injury was inconsistent with the medical report of her personal physician which stated the claimant reported a three year history of back pain. Under these circumstances, we may not reweigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the ALJ concerning the claimant’s credibility and the inferences to be drawn from the record.
Insofar as the claimant argues the findings are insufficient to support appellate review, we disagree. We are able to ascertain the basis of the order from the ALJ’s findings and conclusions Magnetic Engineeering, Inc. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 5 P.3d 385 (Colo.App. 2000).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated August 12, 2003, 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, Colorado 80203, by filing a Petition to Review with the Court, within twenty (20) days after the date this Order was mailed, pursuant to § 8-43-301(10) and § 8-43-307, C.R.S. 2003. The appealing party must serve a copy of the Petition upon all other parties, including the Industrial Claim Appeals Office, which may be served by mail at 1515 Arapahoe, Tower 3, Suite 350, Denver, CO 80202.
Copies of this order were mailed to the parties at the addresses shown below on February 27, 2004 by A. Hurtado.
Elizabeth Valdez, 1643 S. Toledo Ct., Aurora, CO 80012
Aurora Public Schools, 15701 E. 1st Ave., #109, Aurora, CO 80011-9023
Joint School District Workers’ Compensation, 1655 Lafayette St., #200, Denver, CO 80218
Stacy Strickland Ross, G. E. Young, 4351 Kipling St., #510, Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
Richard L. Susman, Esq., 155 S. Madison St., #308, Denver, CO 80209 (For Claimant)
Anne Smith Myers, Esq. and Willow I. Arnold, Esq., 3900 E. Mexico Ave., #1000, Denver, CO 80210 (For Respondents)