W.C. No. 4-592-203.Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
August 20, 2004.
FINAL ORDER
The pro se claimant seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Martinez (ALJ) which denied the claim for benefits. We affirm.
The claimant alleged he sustained bilateral inguinal hernias caused by heavy lifting in his job as a construction worker. The claimant cited July 30, 2003, as the date of injury.
However, the ALJ denied the claim for benefits, concluding the claimant failed to prove the hernias were caused the employment. In support, the ALJ found the claimant could not identify any particular incident which caused the hernias. Moreover, the claimant did not seek medical treatment until September 2003 despite testifying that the injury rendered him unable to work. The ALJ also noted the only medical expert to opine on the issue of causation couched the opinion in terms of possibility rather than probability. Consequently, the ALJ concluded the opinion was not persuasive.
The claimant filed a petition to review stating only that the ALJ’s order represents a mistake of fact and law. The claimant failed to file a brief in support of the petition. Consequently, the effectiveness of our review is limited.
The claimant had the burden to prove he sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of the employment. Determination of whether the claimant satisfied his burden of proof is a question of fact for resolution by the ALJ. Section 8-41-301(1)(c), C.R.S. 2003; 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 finding if supported by substantial evidence in the record. Section 8-43-301(8), C.R.S. 2003.
Here, the claimant failed to designate a transcript of the hearing as part of the record for review. Consequently, we must presume the ALJ’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. Nova v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 754 P.2d 800 (Colo.App. 1988). Further, it was the ALJ’s province to assess the weight to be assigned the medical opinion, and we may not substitute our judgment for his in that regard Cordova v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 55 P.3d 186 (Colo.App. 2002). The ALJ was not persuaded by the evidence, and there is no basis for finding that the ALJ’s order was mistaken as a matter of fact or law.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated April 21, 2004, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
____________________________________ David Cain
____________________________________ Bill Whitacre
Pat Valdez, Delta, CO.
Thomas and Constantino Shairez, Connie Built Homes, Delta, CO.