W.C. No. 4-301-616Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
January 27, 1999
FINAL ORDER
The claimant seeks review of a final order of Administrative Law Judge Rumler (ALJ) which denied his claim for medical benefits. The claimant contends the ALJ erroneously found that his need for medical treatment was caused by an injury he sustained in 1994 rather than the 1996 industrial injury for which he seeks benefits. We affirm.
This matter was before us previously. In an order dated August 17, 1998, we held that the ALJ erred in finding that the claimant’s need for medical treatment in February 1998 was attributable to a 1994 back injury rather than the 1996 industrial injury. Specifically, we concluded that the ALJ impermissibly determined that the claimant reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) for the 1996 injury without requiring the claimant to undergo an independent medical examination (IME) as required by section 8-42-107 (8) (b), C.R.S. 1998. We also stated the following:
“However, we do not understand [citation omitted] as otherwise prohibiting an ALJ from deciding which of two possible injuries has actually necessitated the need for particular medical treatment. Put another way, the fact that the claimant may not have been at MMI for the 1996 aggravation does not necessarily compel the conclusion that all subsequent medical treatment was necessitated by the 1996 aggravation.”
Consequently, we directed the ALJ to find the cause of the claimant’s need for treatment without making an independent determination of whether the claimant reached MMI for the 1996 injury.
On remand, the ALJ again concluded that the claimant’s need for medical treatment in February 1998 was caused by the 1994 injury rather than the 1996 injury. The ALJ found that after the claimant underwent back surgery for the 1994 injury he experienced an increase in back pain “approximately every six months” thereafter. In support, the ALJ cited several examples from the medical records documenting acute flare-ups prior to May 1996. The ALJ also relied on medical reports of Dr. Yurth indicating that the claimant’s back pain is attributable to a “post laminectomy syndrome” characterized by the formation of scar tissue around a nerve root.
On review, the claimant contends the ALJ’s finding that his back pain is causally connected to the 1994 injury rather than the 1996 injury is not supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, the claimant argues that the medical evidence does not support a finding that he experienced flare-ups every six months. The claimant also asserts that there are no “medical opinions” supporting the ALJ’s conclusion that his symptoms are the result of scar tissue stemming from the surgery for the 1994 injury. We disagree with these arguments.
The question of whether the claimant proved that his need for treatment in February 1998 is causally connected to the 1996 injury is one of fact for determination by the ALJ. City of Durango v. Dunagan, 939 P.2d 496 (Colo.App. 1997). Consequently, we must uphold the ALJ’s order if supported by substantial evidence in the record. Section 8-43-301 (8), C.R.S. 1998.
In applying the substantial evidence test, we must defer to the ALJ’s resolution of conflicts in the evidence, her credibility determinations, and the plausible inferences she drew from the record. We note that it was for the ALJ to assess the weight and credibility of the expert medical evidence concerning causation Rockwell International v. Turnbull, 802 P.2d 1182 (Colo.App. 1990). Moreover, the ALJ was not required to make findings concerning all pieces of evidence. Rather, it was sufficient for the ALJ to make findings concerning the evidence which she found determinative of the issues involved. Riddle v. Ampex Corp., 839 P.2d 489 (Colo.App. 1992).
The claimant’s arguments notwithstanding, the record fully supports the ALJ’s finding that the claimant sustained flare-ups of back pain approximately every six months following the 1994 injury. The claimant himself testified to this fact, and the ALJ cited specific examples from the medical records.
Moreover, the ALJ plausibly inferred from the reports of Dr. Yurth that she believed the claimant’s 1998 back pain was caused by scar tissue resulting from surgery for the 1994 injury. It is true that other interpretations of the records were possible, and that Dr. Yurth’s opinions were contradicted by Dr. Elbert. However, the possibility that the evidence might have been interpreted differently affords no basis for relief on appeal May D F v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 752 P.2d 589
(Colo.App. 1988).
Insofar as the claimant made other arguments, we find them to be without merit. We also incorporate herein the conclusions stated in our Order of Remand dated August 17, 1998.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated September 28, 1998, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
____________________________________ David Cain ____________________________________ Kathy E. Dean
NOTICE
This Order is final unless an action to modify or vacate the 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, with service of a copy of the petition upon the Industrial Claim Appeals Office and all other parties, within twenty (20) days after the date the Order was mailed, pursuant to §§ 8-43-301(10) and 307, C.R.S. 1998.
Copies of this decision were mailed January 27, 1999
to the following parties:
Edward E. Ward, 3690 Hayden Place, #6, Boulder, CO 80301
Sievers Instruments, Inc., 6185 Arapahoe Road, Boulder, CO 80302-1401
Colorado Compensation Insurance Authority, Attn: Legal Department (Interagency Mail)
Gary Hale, TIG Insurance Company, P.O. Box 17005, Denver, CO 80217
John G. Taussig, Esq., 1919 14th Street, Suite 805, Boulder, CO 80302 (For Claimant)
Kent L. Yarbrough, Esq., 5353 West Dartmouth Avenue, Suite 400, Denver, CO 80227 (For Respondents)
BY: ____________