W.C. No. 4-590-624.Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
August 18, 2006.
FINAL ORDER
The claimant seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Jones dated March 14, 2006 that denied the claimant’s request for additional permanent partial disability (PPD). We affirm.
The claimant sustained a compensable industrial injury to his left elbow on January 21, 2003. The claimant was given a four percent left upper extremity rating by his treating physician and a final admission of liability (FAL) was filed admitting to that rating. The claimant challenged the rating and a Division-sponsored independent medical examination (DIME) was performed. The DIME physician found that the claimant had no medical impairment. The DIME physician opined that though the claimant complained of considerable pain this was largely due to exaggeration. The respondent filed a revised FAL admitting to the findings of the DIME physician.
The claimant saw a physician at his attorney’s request who acknowledged there was functional overlay and so he discounted the claimant’s complaint but opined that the claimant was not at maximum medical improvement (MMI). At the hearing, the claimant complained that the joints hurt in the fingers of both hands and alleged he was depressed.
In his petition to review the claimant contends the ALJ erred in her determination that the claimant failed to present any competent evidence that he was entitled to any additional permanent medical impairment benefits. The claimant argues that he introduced into evidence the report of Dr. Thiel and this contains an impairment rating. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order at 4 ¶ 5.
Other than listed above the petition to review contains only general allegations of error, derived from § 8-43-301(8), C.R.S. 2005. 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 has also failed to provide a transcript of the hearing and, therefore, we must presume that the ALJ’s factual findings are supported by the record. Nova v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 754 P.2d 800
(Colo.App. 1988).
The claimant is correct that there is a report in the record in which Dr. Thiel expresses the opinion that the claimant had a four percent impairment rating of his upper extremity for the work related injury. Exhibit 3 at 17. However, as noted by the ALJ in her order, this was the basis of the respondent’s first FAL of December 16, 2003. Exhibit D. We understand by the respondent’s second FAL of June 2, 2004, that the four percent permanent partial disability benefit, based on Dr. Thiel’s opinion, admitted to in the first FAL had already been paid by the time of the entry of the second FAL. Exhibit B. Therefore, we detect no error in the ALJ’s determination that the claimant failed to present any competent evidence that he was entitled to any additional permanent medical impairment benefits.
Under § 8-43-301(8), we are precluded from disturbing the ALJ’s order unless the findings of fact are insufficient to permit appellate review, the ALJ has not resolved conflicts in the evidence, the record does not support the findings, the order is not supported by the findings, or the order is not supported by applicable law.
Here, we have reviewed the record and the ALJ’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. The ALJ’s findings are sufficient to permit appellate review and the ALJ resolved conflicts in the evidence based upon weighing of the evidence and her credibility determinations. Further, the ALJ’s findings are amply supported by substantial evidence in the record and the findings support the conclusion that the claimant failed to prove entitlement to further benefits and compensation. The ALJ correctly applied the law and did not err in denying further benefits. Accordingly, we perceive no basis on which to disturb the ALJ’s order.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order issued March 14, 2006, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
___________________________________ Thomas Schrant
___________________________________ Robert M. Socolofsky
Francisco Verduzco, Bellflower, CA, (Pro Se).
Cargill Meat Solutions, Morgan, CO, Crawford Company, Englewood, CO, Britton Morrell, Esq., Greeley, CO, Tama L. Levine, Esq., Denver, CO, (For Respondent).